Appellant's Dissatisfaction With Relief Granted Does Not Imply Error In Order: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant, Shree Vinayak Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., was a Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The complainant society owned a plot of land on which a building, “Shree Vinayak,” was constructed by Karwa Developers/developer. The developer, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act 1932, engaged in real estate development, including residential and commercial projects. A development agreement was signed between the complainant society and the developer, wherein the developer was to demolish the existing building and redevelop it by constructing six upper floors along with amenities as per the agreement. Despite delays and discrepancies in flat measurements identified by an independent architect, the developer handed over the flats to the society five months later than scheduled, with unresolved issues, including unpaid water taxes. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant registered a complaint with the State Commission of Maharastra, which allowed the complaint. It directed the developer to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant society per clause of the agreement for the delay in handing over possession and pay Rs.30,000 as litigation cost. Dissatisfied with the relief granted, the complainant appealed against the State Commission's order to the National Commission.

Contentions of the developer

The developer argued that the complaint was partially allowed by the State Commission, with directions to pay Rs.5,00,000 as compensation for delayed possession of permanent alternate accommodation, along with Rs.30,000 towards costs. It was argued that despite filing an Appeal against the initial order, it was dismissed by the Commission at the admission stage, citing jurisdictional concerns. The developer further noted that they subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn during the admission hearing, with the court advising them first to seek review before the National Commission.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the differences raised by the complainant against the developer pertained to issues outlined in the development agreement and maintenance matters such as lift battery backups. Despite the developer's contention that the Cooperative Society did not qualify as a consumer under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, the Commission ruled otherwise. The commission referred to the case of Sobha Hibiscus Condominium vs Managing Director, M/s Sobha Developers Ltd., which ruled that a Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act cannot be considered a voluntary organization and, therefore, does not qualify as a consumer under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court emphasized that such societies must be registered under the law, excluding them from the consumer protection provisions applicable to voluntary organizations. The Commission emphasized that, regarding the complainant's contention that the State Commission did not sufficiently compensate them, it noted that the challenged order was thorough and well-reasoned. The fact that the complainant was dissatisfied with the amount of relief granted does not imply that the order itself was erroneous.

The Commission upheld the State Commission's detailed and reasoned order, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Case Title: Shree Vinayak Co-Op HSG. Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Karwa Developers

Case Number: F.A. No. 521 /2017