(Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member) (1) This appeal takes an exception to an impugned order dated 02/05/2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No.90/2006, M/s. Status Construction Pvt.Ltd. & ors. Vs. Sankalp Apartment CHS Ltd. & ors., passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District. (2) It is a case against the builder and developer by the society of flat purchasers for alleged deficiency in service, since the builder and developer failed to execute conveyance deed, further failed to account for the amount collected from the flat purchasers towards share capital and the amount of deposits received from the flat purchasers. The forum below found deficiency in service on the part the appellants/original opponents and allowed the complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. (3) Learned counsel for the appellant tried to raise a point that respondents/original complainants are not the consumers. No other point is raised and prayed before us by the appellant. As per the standard agreement of the flat purchaser and the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flat Purchasers’ Act (MOFA), the builder and developer are under obligation to render the accounts to the society after its registration, in the first meeting. In the instant case the builder and developer failed to discharge the said obligation. The conveyance is to be made in favour of the society and not in favour of individual flat purchaser. (4) The ‘service’ as defined u/s. 2(1)(g) of the Act reads :- “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;”(Underlining provided). It is clear case of deficiency in service and therefore we find that the forum was right in entertaining the complaint and granting it. (5) In view of the circumstances stated above, the appeal is devoid by substance. Accordingly, we hold and pass the following order. ORDER (1) Appeal stands dismissed. (2) No order as to cost. Pronounced on 22nd June, 2011. | 
