Complaint Details

Status	:	Closed
Complaint No	:	0101789/2018
Category	:	Real Estate
Date	:	14-05-2018
Subject Line	:	Deficiency of service and unfair trade practices
Complainant	:	Amit Joshi
Address	:	Mulund East
Complainee	:	Richa Realtors
Address	:	Dadar ( W )

Complaint Details
We the Complainant had booked a flat in a society with the Opponent 1. The Opponent No.1 are builders and developers. The Opponent No.2 is a Co-operative Housing Society. The complainant has paid a consideration of Rs.25,50,000/- only for a 3 BHK Flat. At the time of sale and possession the Opponent No.1 converted TWO- 1 BHK Flat and amalgamated it into one 3 BHK Flat.
The Opponent No.2 a CHS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY collects maintenance charges for two flats instead of one flat bought by him. The Opponent No.2 reasons that as the final O.C. plan shows two flats instead of one flat sold to the Complainant it is charging them for two flats.
The opponent 1 vide correspondence dated xx/xx/xxxx issued by the Opponent No.1 to the Opponent No.2 have clearly stated that though the O.C. plan shows two flats, but they have infact sold one flat by combining both the flats and the same is remained to be got vetted from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. They are initiating the process of getting approval from BMC for combining two flats into one. To this date, The Opponent1 has utterly failed to make the necessary documentation with Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai, in this regard for the reasons best known to the Opponent 1 and the Opponent1 had obtained the occupancy certificate without carrying out the necessary amendments in their original floor plan. As per the Occupancy Certificate, there still exists two separate flats of one BHK each and it is not showing one flat of 3 BHK, wherein the complainants are residing.
The society based on the request of the complainant and the opponent 1 had issued NOC letter to correct the anomaly in the drawings. directed to MCGM copying both the parties with terms and conditions that the NOC is subject to certain terms which included that any adverse impact on the society due to such conversion, the member will make good to the society. Acceptance of the letter means acceptance by the member for all the terms and conditions.
The Complainant states that due to the Opponent such negligent acts, the complainants are forced to pay monthly maintenance charges on two flats instead of one flat. Thus, the complainants are forced to incur extra expenditure towards payment of maintenance of one extra flat without any mistake on their part. Thus, the opponents are solely responsible for the financial loss incurred by the complainants for paying extra monthly maintenance charges to the Society.
This case was filed before a district Consumer forum as the State forum in April 2015 refused to file it as the compensation claimed was below 20 Lakh. However due to a Supreme court judgement in 2016 , the DF dismissed the case stating that it had no jurisdiction on this case. It also asked all the parties to bear their own cost.
The fallout of this is a new case needs to be filed before state forum against the builder. The Society in the interim issued a letter and debit note stating that we the members should reimburse the legal expenses as it was made party to this case without reason. Moreover based on a letter issued earlier directed to MCGM , the member is bound to make good to the society the legal charges. The society has also issued a debit note and now started adding this legal expenses in the maintenance bill along with interest.
Query : Is the society justified in claiming legal expenses reimbursement against the court order which reads all the parties to bear their own cost ? Is it right to include society in the complaint against the builder since the society is right on its part to claim maintenance however any of the decision that the court may take on the future payment of maintenance can affect the society and hence they should also be made opponent 2. Due to the debit note and maintenance bill raised for legal expenses , can we charge the society for torture and mental agony ? All this in a single consumer case.

Replies