The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed four revision petitions filed by M/s Siddhanath Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, upholding earlier orders that directed the housing society and its developer to hand over flats and compensate homebuyers in a redevelopment dispute pending for more than two decades in Thane.
The dispute relates to a redevelopment project undertaken by the Siddhanath Co-operative Housing Society at Upavan, Pokhran Road No. 1, Thane. The society had appointed developer Lovely Construction for the project. Under the redevelopment agreement, the developer was required to construct 12 flats for existing society members and was also permitted to build and sell four additional flats to outside purchasers.
The complainants approached consumer forums alleging that despite making payments to the developer, possession of the promised flats was never handed over to them.
Earlier, the District Consumer Commission had partly allowed the complaints and directed both the society and the developer, jointly and severally, to hand over possession of Flat No. 15 within three months. The commission had also ordered a refund of Rs 1.52 lakh with 15% annual interest, along with compensation of Rs 50,000 and litigation costs of Rs 5,000.
Before the NCDRC, the society argued that the complainants could not be considered consumers of the housing society and also claimed that the complaints were barred by limitation.
Rejecting these arguments, the National Commission observed that the society owned the land and had engaged the developer to construct and sell flats, thereby establishing a consumer relationship with the complainants.
“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.
The commission further noted that after the original developer failed to fulfil contractual obligations, the society appointed a new developer who completed flats for existing members, while the complainants remained uncompensated.
Citing Supreme Court rulings regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, the NCDRC held that there was no illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the lower consumer forums and dismissed all four revision petitions.
Source: The Free Press Journal
