Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          By this common judgement, we are disposing off all the four appeals filed by org. opponents-Shri Swami Samarth Associates and Shri Yashwant Babasaheb Babar against the judgement and award passed by Add. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune on 29/01/2004.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum decided four complaints by one common judgement.  Complaints were filed by Shri Dadabhau Baburao Kurkute, Shri Sharad Shantaram Kubal, Shri Vimalkumar Kaluram Mehta and Shri Baldevsing Premsing Rajpurohit.  All these four complainants had filed four complaints against M/s.Shri Swami Smarth Associates/appellant herein-opponent No.1 in the Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune and against opponent No.2- Shri Yashwant Babasaheb Babar who was owner of the land on which the builder-developer-Shri Swami Samarth Associates had constructed the flats.  In all the four complaints, the complainants had some grievances.  Complainants pointed out some deficiencies in the construction and some of the complaints were for less area than the agreed to be given by the builder-developer.  Some of the complainants complained that possession was given after about 11 months beyond the date stipulated in the agreement.  Some of the complainants had grievance that only one door was affixed.  There were some broken tiles.  Some tiles were used by the builder contrary to what was assured in the agreement.  With these complaints, complainants filed consumer complaints and claimed various reliefs against the builder.  There was also common grievance of all the complainants that builder has not formed co-operative housing society of the flat purchasers.  One of the complainant Mr.Mehta alleged that he was given one toilet less. 

2.       These complaints were contested by opponent No.1 by filing written version.  According to opponent No.1, grievances made out by the complainants were false and frivolous.  Opponent No.1-Partner Mr.Govindrao Ganpatrao Patil pleaded that he had retired from the partnership firm and all the four complaints filed were against wrong party.  He pleaded that all the complainants were defaulter in giving installments and therefore, there was delay on the part of opponents/appellants herein in giving possession.  Opponent No.1 also pleaded that he was taking legal steps to form co-operative housing society.  His contention was that in one of the flat of the complainant, complainant had told him not to affix door to the kitchen and therefore, it was not installed.  Opponent No.1 pleaded that all the flats were having proper built-up area as per the agreement and all the amenities assured were provided to all the flat purchasers.  Hence, he pleaded that all the complaints should be dismissed with costs. 

3.       Opponent No.2 also filed written version and pleaded that he was owner of the land on which the building was constructed by opponent No.1.  He had given development rights to opponent No.1 and flats were sold by opponent No.1 and he was not responsible for any defects, deficiency even in the construction.  He is not liable for the reliefs claimed by the complainants in all these four complaints.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in the course of trial had appointed Court Commissioner Mr.Mohan Sakhalkar, who had inspected all the four flats belonging to four complainants.  He found various deficiencies in all the four flats belonging to the complainants/respondents in these four appeals.  Acting upon the report, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed that appellants should remove the tiles and affix white cement mosaic tiles in the flats belonging to Mr.Kubal and Mr.Kurkute.  Appellants were also directed to form co-operative housing society within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement.  Failing which the appellants should pay `100/- till the society is formed.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also directed the appellants to remove broken 15 grey mosaic tiles from the flat of Mr.Rajpurohit and install new one.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that flats of Mr.Kubal and Mr.Mehta were having some lesser area than the agreed and therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the appellants to pay a sum of `3,831/- to Mr.Kubal and `5,254.58 to Mr.Mehta.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also directed to refund amount of `30,000/- to Mr.Kurkute as excess amount collected from him.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also found that one toilet assured in the flat of Mr.Mehta was not constructed and therefore, Mr.Mehta should have been paid amount of `20,000/- in lieu of toilet not provided in his flat.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum further directed both the opponents/appellants herein to pay `5,000/- as compensation to each of the complainants within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.  Aggrieved by this order, org. opponents have filed these four appeals. 

4.       There is some delay in filing these four appeals.  Delay has been condoned by this Commission by order dated 25/07/2005.  Thereafter, these four appeals were lying unattended.  As per policy of this Commission, these four appeals were placed on Board on 04/08/2011 after displaying notice on Notice Board of this Commission and it was also notified on the Internet Board of this Commission.  But on 04/08/2011 neither appellants nor respondents appeared in these four appeals.  Therefore, we had directed office to issue notices to both the parties.  The appellants are common and notice in A-1648/2004 has been issued to both the parties and since these are common appeals and parties are common, we hold that appellants and respondents, both are duly served and there is no need to send separate notices to both the parties since these four appeals are kept jointly on everyday when the matters are adjourned for hearing.  It is also pertinent to note that these four matters were jointly heard on the point of delay and delay has been jointly condoned by this Commission.  So, all the appeals are kept together and notices sent to both the parties in one appeal be considered as notices sent to all the parties.

5.       Today, we find that both the parties are absent.  We perused the judgement and documents and we are finding that appellants had no case at all.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum appreciated the evidence adduced on record by both the parties.  There rival claims were considered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum appointed Expert-Court Commissioner.  Court Commissioner made measurement in all four flats belonging to respondents and he noted various defects and deficiencies in the individual flats.  Acting upon said Court Commissioner’s report, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ultimately passed the impugned award and directed the appellants to make good the deficiencies listed in the operative order passed in the judgement.  On the whole, we find that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just, proper and it is sustainable in law and there appears no merit in the appeals preferred by appellants.  Direction to refund certain amount, direction to pay compensation, direction to form co-operative society and direction to remove some broken tiles, etc. are the proper directions issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by reasoned order.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  We find no substance in the common impugned order passed by Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in four complaints mentioned in the order.  In the circumstances, we pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal Nos.1647 to 1650/2004 are dismissed.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced

Dated 29^th September 2011.