Consumer Protection – Deficiency of service – Appellants evolved a scheme of constructing a building consisting of flats and shops – Purchasers of those flats and shops formed a co-operative housing society – In relation to the project in question, dispute arose between the members of the respondent-society and appellantsbuilders – Respondent-society contended that appellants failed to complete the interior works and failed to obtain the completion certification as also the occupancy certificate – It was also alleged that appellants borrowed varied sums of money from the respondentsociety on pretext of completing the unfinished work – On the other hand, appellants contended that delay was due to the obstruction caused and created by the respondent, who had made illegal construction/alterations – State Commission, inter alia, directed appellants to execute Deed of conveyance of the property in question after obtaining the completion certificate and occupancy certificate and entitled the respondent for refund of amount of Rs.26,25,000/-, which was given to obtain possession of the flat – Before, National Commission, appellants denied the receipt of the loan amount of Rs.26,25,000/- – The said submission was accepted by the National Commission, however, it held that appellants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondent-society in the meeting dated 17.12.2003, therefore, the appellants were bound by the admission so made by them and were liable to that extent – National Commission also directed appellants to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for not obtaining occupancy certificate and directed appellants to pay Rs.1000/- per day after 60 days of the order and until obtaining full occupancy certificate – On appeal, held: Direction by the National Commission as regards payment of sum of Rs.25,00,000/606 by the appellants to the respondent requires no interference – Insofar other directions are concerned, there was no record to hold the appellants liable for compensation – In other words, there was no material on record to find if respondent-society or its members suffered any loss – Therefore, part of order directing appellants to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- set aside – Also, Municipal Corporation had issued notices regarding alterations by the members of the respondent-society and dispute regarding the same has not settled as the High Court has directed for inspection of the building and necessary follow up steps – Thus, in the circumstances, part of the impugned order requiring the appellants to pay Rs.1000/- per day after 60 days of the order, also set aside – Appellants and respondent directed to complete all requisites on their part – After completion of all the requisites by the parties, the appellants directed to execute the Deed of conveyance in favour of the respondentsociety after obtaining necessary occupancy certificate – Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 – ss.4 and 11.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Indisputably, in the application dated 21.03.2013 as moved before the State Commission, the respondent-society restricted its prayer for money recovery to a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with reference to the minutes of meetings dated 17.12.2003 and 14.12.2003. It is at once clear that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the appellants in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent-society. The appellants having agreed to make such payment, the National Commission has rightly put them to the terms of honouring their unequivocal commitment/promise. In the given set of facts and circumstance, this Court is unable to accept the contention that a particular part of order of the State Commission having not been challenged by the respondentsociety, the National Commission could not have granted the relief otherwise available on the face of record. In an overall view of the matter, when such a relief emanates from the very commitment made by the appellants in the meetings aforesaid, the National Commission had been fully justified in granting the same to the respondent-society. Therefore, there is no reason to consider any interference in this part of direction by the National Commission. [Para 10] [624-G-H; 625-A-B]
2. Even when this Court finds no reason to interfere with the above-mentioned parts of the order impugned, it appears difficult to approve the directions in the remaining parts thereof, particularly those relating to other pecuniary reliefs. The National Commission has saddled the appellants with a liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- for not obtaining Occupancy Certificate and has issued further directions to the appellants to obtain such certificate as also to execute the requisite Deed and to pay Rs. 1,000/- per day for every day of delay. True it is that Occupancy Certificate was not obtained by the appellants but then, fact of the matter remains that the members of respondent-society chose to take over possession without such certificate; and then, several questions have arisen as regards the alteration allegedly carried out by them for which, the Municipal Corporation has the objections to raise. In any case, there appears nothing on record to find the basis for holding the appellants liable for compensation and then, for assessing the quantum of compensation, if at all there be any liability of the appellants. In other words, there is no material on record to find if the respondent-society or its members suffered any loss; and if so, the extent thereof. Therefore, this part of the order impugned, directing the appellants to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-, cannot be approved. [Para 11] [625-C-F]
3. As regards direction to appellants to convey the title of the property in question by executing a registered Deed within a period of four months after obtaining Occupancy Certificate, though the appellants cannot avoid their legal obligation to execute the requisite Deed but then, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the facts relating to the issuance of notices by the Municipal Corporation; and the dispute/objection regarding alterations by the members of the respondent-society having not been settled as yet with the High Court having issued directions for inspection of the building and for necessary follow-up steps, awarding of Rs. 1,000/- per day for every day of delay seems rather unwarranted. In the given situation, where the Municipal Corporation had been of the view that there were visible illegal constructions made by the members of respondent-society because of which the Certificate cannot be issued; and in view of the orders dated 12.06.2017 and 07.01.2019 passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 970 of 2015, the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- per day deserves to be waived at present but with the requirements on the parties to complete the respective requisites, while leaving it open for them to take recourse to appropriate remedies, in case of any grievance arising in future. [Para 12] [625-G-H; 626-A-B]
4. In the result:
(i) The impugned order dated 07.03.2018 is not interfered with, to the extent it relates to the payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- by the appellants to the respondent-society. The appellants shall make payment of this amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- within 45 days from today failing which, this amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from today until payment; (ii) The other part of the order impugned, saddling the appellants with liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- is set aside; (iii) Yet another part of the order impugned, requiring the appellants to pay Rs. 1,000/- per day after 60 days of the order and until obtaining full Occupancy Certificate, is also set aside; (iv) As regards obtaining of Occupancy Certificate and execution of the Deed of Conveyance by the appellants, it is provided that: (a) the appellants shall complete all the requisites on their part for obtaining Occupancy Certificate within three months from today; and (b) the respondent-society and its members shall also ensure compliance of the requisites on their part (with reference to the orders passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 970 of 2015) within three months from today and for that matter, they may seek necessary directions from the High Court, if so required. Within two months of completion of all the requisites by the parties, the appellants shall execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the respondent-society after obtaining the necessary Occupancy Certificate. As regards this part of the matter, it is also left open for the parties to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law, in case of any grievance arising in future;
(v) The cost imposed on the appellants is waived and parties are left to bear their own costs of this litigation. [Para 14] [626-D-H; 627-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.