Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member

Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.405/2000 decided on 18/4/2007, whereby complaint of the complainants was partly allowed by the forum and O.Ps were directed to pay to complainant no.1 an amount of `10,000/- and to complainant no.2, `10,000/- on or before 18/5/2007 else to pay `50,000/- each as compensation.  As such, original O.Ps-Builder/developers have filed this appeal.  Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-

Complainants had filed consumer complaint against builder/developers.  According to complainant nos.1&2, they had under Agreement of sale purchased flat nos.9 & 12 respectively from O.Ps and had taken possession of the flats and O.Ps executed deed of possession in their favour in 1998.  At the time of Agreement of sale, O.Ps had collected from each of the complainants `10,000/- for electric meter and `2,000/- by way of other expenses. Both of them paid `12,000/- on this count. But according to complainants, when they had taken possession, they found that electric meter was not installed and O.Ps. had not procured water tab connection from the Municipal Corporation.  Grievance of the complainants is that they had to spend amounts to take tap water connection and electric meter connection.

Complainants further pleaded that O.P.nos.1&2 should have paid the property tax before they had taken possession of the respective flats from the O.Ps.  They had not paid the said tax.  Therefore, complainants themselves were required to pay the tax.  As such, they filed consumer complaint listing these grievances and sought refund of `10,000/- for the electric meter, `50,000/- as compensation and also claimed `5,000/- towards water charges which they were required to pay to procure water tankers from the water suppliers. 

O.Ps filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainants. According to O.Ps, the complainants are nominees of Government. Under Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976,  O.P.no.1 was permitted to develop surplus land on the condition that 10% of the total flats would be delivered by O.P.no.1 either to the Government or to the persons nominated by the Government.  Accordingly, the flats were constructed and 10% flats were offered to the Government and under that scheme municipal tax is required to be paid either by Government or the persons nominated by the Government in respect of flats so offered to the Government by the builder. So O.Ps disputed their liability or responsibility to pay property tax to the local Municipal Corporation.

O.Ps further pleaded that the applicants had paid requisite amount for MSEB connection, meter and incidental charges.  In fact defendants had deposited the S.L.C. charges as well as amounts mentioned in the firm quotation with MSEB on 30/6/1998 itself  i.e. prior to the delivery of the flats to the applicants.  Besides the deposits, opponent had already spent substantial amounts for electric supply for the entire project. O.Ps pleaded that at that point of time MSEB was not having requisite number of meters and, therefore, on account of shortage of meters from MSEB, MSEB could not install the meters and, as such, present opponents should not be blamed.  Present applicants might have purchased electric meters but then in that case they would not be required to pay rent of the meter to the MSEB. 

O.Ps further pleaded that the applicants’ grievance that there is no municipal water connection is false.  They pleaded that none of the agreements had assured that Pune Municipal Corporation water tap connection would be provided to each flat.  For whole building there is only one connection and no individual flats are connected directly from municipal tap.  O.Ps pleaded that underground water storage tank has been constructed and overhead water tank storage with pump has also been provided and, therefore, they were not guilty of deficiency in service in respect of procuring municipal water to the flats in question. O.Ps pleaded that complainant no.1 is in the habit of making grievance every now and then for no reasons and thereby he has tried to extract unlawful benefits there from.  They had given notice through his advocate to the opponent.  However, that notice was withdrawn subsequently.  He got satisfied that notice was sent to the O.Ps. under misunderstanding and misconception.

O.Ps pleaded that they are not guilty of deficiency of service and, as such, complaint should be dismissed with cost.

Upon hearing rival counsels and upon perusal of affidavits and documents placed on record, forum below held that complainants had failed to prove that the property tax was payable to the builder/developers as per Government directive issued by Urban Development authority of Mantralaya dated 17/6/2006. The property tax is payable only after possession is taken by nominated persons as per nomination issued by Government of Maharashtra. So property tax is assessed in respect of 10% flats released by the Government only after its’ possession is taken by the respective flat purchasers as nominated by Government of India.  So tax is assessable only when flat purchasers who are allotted the flats by the Government occupies flats for the first time and, therefore, forum below held that payment of property tax was not the liability of O.P./ builder but it was the liability of the flat purchasers because from the date of possession of the flat, local Municipal Corporation is required to assess the property tax in possession of such flat purchasers.

Secondly, forum below also found that there was no substance in the allegation made by the complainants in respect of municipal water connection.  It was the contention of the respondents that Municipal water connection should be given to all flats independently but agreement did not stipulate like that.  Agreement simply mentions that municipal water connection should be made available to the flat owners jointly and not individually.  Moreover, forum below found that amount collected from complainant no.1 was refunded to complainant no.1 by the builder as per refund receipt dated 11/1/1999.  So forum below held that there was no grievance in this respect. However, forum below found substance in the complaint in so far as electric meter is concerned. 

Forum below held that complainants had produced before it the receipt showing that they had purchased electric meter and taken electric connection for their flats though builder/developer had collected `10,000/- in advance from them. Forum below found substance in this allegation of the complainants and hold that complainant nos.1&2 were required to again spent from their pocket, monies for procuring electric meter or electric connection in their flats though as per agreement dated 05/5/1998 from each of them they had collected `10,000/- towards MSEB deposit. In the circumstances, forum below partly allowed the complaint and directed O.Ps to refund `10,000/- to complainant no.1 and `10,000/- to complainant no.2. To this extent complaint was partly allowed by the forum below.  Aggrieved by this award appellants/original O.Ps have filed this appeal.

At the stage of admission we heard advocate Mr.Y.Kamat for appellant and advocate Mr.A.S.Randive for respondent.

We are finding that on the whole award passed by the forum below is just and proper.  It is sustainable in law.  Forum below rightly decided the complaint and awarded refund of `10,000/- to both the respondents by the appellants since appellants failed to provide electric meter with electric light connection to the flats of both the respondents despite the fact that O.Ps had collected `10,000/- each from both of them for that purpose.  This was the only deficiency found on the part of the appellants and for that purpose forum below rightly directed refund of `10,000/- to each complainant.  We find that order passed by the forum below is just and proper and there is no need to interfere with the order by this Commission while exercising appellate jurisdiction.  We are finding no substance preferred by the original O.Ps.  Hence the following order:-

                                                          ORDER

Appeal stands dismissed.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Inform the parties accordingly.