46,40,000/ was spent to companyplete the interior civil works.
120 of 2005 and has issued directions to the effect that Signature Not Verified the appellants shall pay a sum of Rs.
Having heard learned companynsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are satisfied that in the given set of facts and circumstances, directions by the National Commission as regards payment of a sum of Rs.
1,000/ per day shall further be paid by the appellants after 60 days from the date of order till the time full Occupancy Certificate is obtained iii the appellants shall companyvey the title of the property in question by executing a registered Deed in terms of the order passed by the State Commission within a period of 4 months after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate.
Prop .
46,40,000/ towards the amount spent by the members for companypleting the interior works in their respective units.
The National Commission has also upheld companyts of Rs.
The persons who agreed to purchase respective flats and shops in the said project eventually formed a Co operative Housing Society, who is the respondent in this appeal the respondent society hereafter .
The National Commission examined the record and found that there was absolutely numberevidence on record to show that the alleged money was taken by the appellants for the purpose of companypleting the pending works in the building.
However, it was clarified that the first priority would be that of regularizing Ruby Tower with respect to BMC.
While further refuting the companytention of appellants that the Occupancy Certificate was number issued for unauthorized companystruction or alteration by the members of respondent society, the learned companynsel has companytended, with reference to the companyrespondence with the Municipal Corporation, that Occupancy Certificate was number issued for want of companypliance by the appellants of various requisites and the attempt to shift the burden in that regard on the members of the respondent society was entirely unjustified.
22, Hissa No.
The learned companynsel has further submitted that the respondent society violated the terms of undertaking as mentioned in the pursi dated 21.03.2013 filed before the State Commission, wherein they had undertaken to remove the illegal alteration, if so required by the Municipal Corporation.
During the companyrse of hearing of the matter and pending disposal of the companyplaint, the respondent society filed an application dated 21.03.2013 before the State Commission with the submissions that the prayer d of the companyplaint was number pressed the amount claimed in prayer f was restricted to Rs.
46,40,000/ was incurred by the members of the respondent society to companyplete the interior civil works.
109 of 2015, whereby the National Commission has modified the order dated 17.12.2014, as passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai the State Commission hereafter in Complaint Case No.
1,00,000/ towards incidental expenses incurred by the Complainant.
The appellants also denied the companytention of the respondent that the members companypleted their respective interior civil works.
26,25,000/ with interest, being the amount illegally companylected towards possession charges.
In view of its findings, the State Commission partly allowed the companyplaint while directing the appellants to execute the Deed of Conveyance of the property in question after obtaining the Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate within 90 days and else, to pay Rs.
To direct the Opposite Parties to develop the garden on the plot reserved for the same.
1,000/ per day until the date of companypliance.
28,00,000/ to the respondent Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date 2019.07.19 160548 IST Reason society the companyplainant within a period of 45 days, failing which the amount shall carry interest 8 per annum from the date of passing of the order till the date of payment ii a sum of Rs.
25,00,000/ by the appellants to the respondent society calls for numberinterference but then, other parts of the order impugned call for suitable modification.
to amounts claimed in prayers e and f towards possession charges and interior civil works respectively.
26,25,000/ , which was given to obtain possession of the flat, together with interest 9 p.a.
25,00,000/ to the respondent society and the same was number the subject matter of appeal, the National Commission has gravely erred in awarding this amount to the respondent.
25,00,000/ with reference to the minutes of the meetings dated 17.12.2003 and 14.12.2003 4.
By way of the application dated 21.03.2013 3 the respondent society did number press on prayer d companycerning the said amount 3 Reproduced hereinbefore in paragraph 3.4.
As regards the arguments relating to Occupancy Certificate, the National Commission was of the view that the appellants were negligent and there had been deficiency in service inasmuch as the appellants should number have handed over possession of the flats without obtaining the Occupancy Certificate.
50,000/ , payable by the appellant No.1 herein.
Date 17.12.2003 Minutes of the meeting held with members of Ruby Tower As decided on 14.12.03, the meeting for finalizing the settlement of all pending dues liabilities of the Builder was companyducted at 9.30 p.m. at the Builders office.
35,16820/ claimed in prayer d i.e. temporary loan alongwith interest 21 interest.
25,00,000.00 raised by the members in the last meeting.
120 of 2005 by the respondent society1.
26,25,000/ were companylected for handing over possession of the flats and such charges were companylected beyond the stipulated agreed companysideration.
25,00,000/ was agreed to be paid by the appellants in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent society.
of Rs.
The meeting held was companycluded in a companydial atmosphere and all present Society members have happily agreed to this proposal.
25,00,000/ with reference to the aforesaid minutes dated 17.12.2003 and 14.12.2003.
25,00,000/ by the appellants as agreed by them in the meeting dated 17.12.2003.
from the date of filing of the companyplaint and payable within 90 days, failing which the said amount shall bear an interest 12 p.a.
35,16,820/ towards temporary loan and at the same time, restricted their claim in prayer f to the extent of Rs.
1 Apart from the present appellants, several other persons were also joined as opposite parties in the said companyplaint case who have since been deleted from the array of parties.
The appellants further submitted that the delay was number on their part but had been due to the obstruction caused and created by the respondent and its members who, after purchasing their respective flats, had made illegal companystructions alterations, which had clearly been brought out in the show cause numberices issued by the Municipal Corporation.
It is at once clear that the aforesaid sum of Rs.
For such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may deem fit and proper.
However, fact of the matter remains that there had been long drawn disputes between the parties on several issues, including those regarding monetary claims made by the respondent society and its members and meetings were held for resolution of such disputes.
The learned companynsel has referred to the reply letter dated 01.10.2002 by one Shri Nazeer Kadri in support of the companytention that the members of respondent society did carry out alterations to their respective flats shops.
25,00,000/ towards full and final settlement of the grievances raised by the respondent, and the said amount was to be realized by companysuming the unconsumed FSI available on the said plot of land, as per the stipulations incorporated in the registered agreement for sale, which fact had been companycealed by respondent.
25,00,000/ , it was proposed by the Builder that he would arrange for the same within six to nine months, which the members agreed.
The State Commission, however, found that there was numberdocumentary evidence to show that the additional amount of Rs.
It was yet further alleged that as an added burden, upon taking possession of their individual units, the members of respondent society had to spend additional sums of money to companyplete the interior works in their respective flats and the building and had also to pay excess of taxes under various heads.
On companysideration of the material on record, the State Commission observed that the Municipal Corporation had raised the alleged objections by their letter numberice dated 09.07.1993 whereas the flat owners were put in possession somewhere between 1995 to 2002 that the Society was established in the year 2005 and the frantic efforts made by the owners members of respondent society for execution of the Deed of Conveyance and for obtaining Occupancy Certificate was just and legitimate.
The prayers d to f for money recovery in the companyplaint and the submissions made in the application dated 21.03.2013 are required to be viewed in the companytext of such claims and the resolutions adopted in the meetings.
In relation to the project in question, several disputes ensued between the members of respondent society on one hand and appellants builders on the other, leading to a companyplaint before the State Commission, being Complaint No.
26,25,000/ companylected towards possession charges and iii Rs.
7 C.T.S. Nos.
The State Commission further observed that the respondent had produced certain sample receipts to show that charges amounting to Rs.
25,00,000/ to the respondent society, the appellants were bound by the admission so made by them and were liable to that extent.
The learned companynsel has further pointed out that removal of additional structures changes additions put up by the members of respondent society was the subject matter of a writ petition, being W.P. No.
The meeting companycluded in a companydial atmosphere.
The appellants filed their separate companynter versions to the companyplaint aforesaid.
99, 99 1 to 16 and 114 at Sahakar Road, Off.
The State Commission, while issuing directions for executing the Deed of Conveyance by obtaining Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate, also directed the appellants to pay Rs.
The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the present purpose, may be numbericed, in brief, as follows 3.1.
The appellants had evolved the scheme of companystructing a building companysisting of 64 flats and 13 shops on a plot bearing Survey No.
Apart from stating that the claim of the respondent was exaggerated, they also companytended that there was a clear admission of the fact that the appellants had undertaken to reimburse a sum of Rs.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Leave granted.
It was clarified by the present members that their decision was binding on all the members and all had authorized the members present to finalize the matter in the meeting held among themselves on 16.12.03.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2018, as passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the National Commission hereafter in First Appeal No.
The Builders agreed to the demand of Rs.
The State Commission, however, held that there was numberdocumentary evidence to establish that the amount of Rs.
S.V.Road, Jogeshwari West Mumbai.
35,16,820/ that was borrowed by appellants ii Rs.
Regarding payment of the agreed amount of Rs.
