Thane, May 12: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed four revision petitions filed by M/s. Siddhanath Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and upheld orders directing the society and its developer to hand over flats and compensate homebuyers in a long-pending housing dispute dating back over two decades.
NCDRC upholds orders of lower consumer fora
“The society is an owner of the land and has engaged a contractor who was to construct 12 flats for the existing society members and four additional flats which he was entitled to sell. Hence, the contention that complainants are not consumers of the Society is not tenable. Non-handing over of the possession constitutes a continuous cause of action. We are of the view that both these contentions about the maintainability of the complaint are not valid,” the order copy read.
Dispute linked to redevelopment project
The dispute arose after the housing society engaged developer Lovely Construction for redevelopment. Under the arrangement, the developer was to construct 12 flats for existing society members and was also entitled to sell four additional flats to outside purchasers.
However, the complainants alleged that despite paying money to the developer, they were not handed possession of the flats.
District commission had ordered possession and compensation
The District Consumer Commission had earlier partly allowed the complaints and directed the society and developer, jointly and severally, to hand over possession of Flat No. 15 in Siddhanath Co-operative Housing Society at Upavan, Pokhran Road No. 1, Thane, within three months.
The forum had also directed refund of Rs 1.52 lakh with 15 per cent annual interest, along with Rs 50,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 litigation costs.
Society’s objections rejected by commission
Before the National Commission, the society argued that the complainants were not consumers of the society and that the complaints were barred by limitation.
Rejecting the contention, the commission observed that the society was the owner of the land and had engaged the contractor for construction and sale of flats, making the complainants consumers. It further held that non-handing over of possession constituted a “continuous cause of action.”
New developer completed project for existing members
The commission also noted that after the original developer failed to perform contractual obligations, the contract was terminated and a new developer was appointed, who delivered flats to existing members while the additional flats were sold to other purchasers, leaving the original complainants uncompensated.
Also Watch:
Revision petitions dismissed
Referring to several Supreme Court rulings on the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, the NCDRC held that there was no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings of the lower consumer fora and therefore refused to interfere with the State Commission’s order dismissing the society’s appeal.
Consequently, all four revision petitions were dismissed.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
