JUDGEMENT
(Pronounced on 11.04.2012)
Per Mr Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member
This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Wardha on 19.01.2001 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/00/133, partly allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of proceedings and further directed to refund of all service and water charges recovered from the respondent from 20.12.1996.
Facts in brief giving rise to the appeal are as under:-
1. The respondent / complainant – Shrikant Chafle had entered into agreement to purchase a tenement constructed by the appellant / original o.p. – Maharashtra Housing & Area Development (in short MHADA). In pursuance of the said transaction one tenement constructed at Mouza Sindi (Meghe), Wardha was allotted to the respondent. The cost of tenement was agreed between the parties at Rs.1,47,750/-. The respondent had deposited sum of Rs.31,750/- as per the agreement. The possession of the said tenement was scheduled to be given by Jan. 1996.
2. Appellant informed respondent that the price of said tenement was increased to Rs.1,99,400/- and the complainant was required to pay a difference of Rs.18,963/-. The complainant paid the difference amount also under protest.
3. It is further contended by the respondent / complainant that the appellant had agreed to provide sanitation, water, road, etc, services and Rs.85/- per month were charged towards the same as service charges. But the same were not provided by the appellant ever since the possession of tenement was handed over to the occupants.
4. The respondent from time to time had made several representation to the appellants but they did not pay any heed to the same, and continued to recover the service charges from the respondent.
5. The second contention of the respondent is that the balance amount of consideration was to be recovered in 123 instalments but the same was recovered in 168 instalments, which again caused increase of financial burden on the respondent.
6. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service, respondent filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions for restraining the appellant from increasing cost of tenement, to furnish the statement of account to the respondent and further direction to provide proper service of drainage, water and road etc. and compensation & cost of proceedings.
7. The appellant / o.p. resisted the complaint before the Forum on preliminary ground of maintainability of the complaint on the point of jurisdiction and limitation. It was further resisted by citing the Regulation 22 of Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Regulations 1981, which empowers the appellant to increase the price of the tenement according to increase in price of the scheme.
8. On the point of limitation the appellant / o.p. has resisted the complaint on the ground that the possession of the tenement was handed over to the respondent on 09.08.1996 and consumer complaint is filed on 01.08.2000 i.e. almost after four years of handing over the possession of the tenement and therefore, the same is time barred.
9. The appellant has denied all the adverse allegations of the respondent and submitted that the increase in price of the tenement, the balance amount to be recovered in number of instalment, is as per the conditions of agreement entered into between the parties and as far as sanitation and other services are concerned, it is submitted that housing scheme, in question, had been completed in 1996 and Board had already provided pipe line, well, pumping machinery, pump house for water supply, external electrification, etc.
10. As per the rules the Board had handed over the service of the said colony to the Gram Panchayat, Sindi (Meghe) and Municipal Council, Wardha in pursuance of the agreement dtd.20.12.1996 and therefore, the appellant was under no obligation to provide the said services.
11. The appellant / o.p. further denied that the service charges for water supply and cleaning were recovered from the respondent and therefore, submitted to dismiss the complaint.
12. The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents, affidavit filed on record, held that as regards the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction and limitation, in the light of regulation of MHADA 1981, the Forum do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue regarding the increase in the price of tenement. However, the Forum has observed that the merely it being not having jurisdiction to interfere the issue of the increase in price of the tenement, does not render the complaint as barred by jurisdiction because the dispute involved also was regarding the services, which were to be rendered by the appellant, therefore, holding that the Forum has jurisdiction, proceeded to decide the complaint on the dispute regarding deficiency in services rendered.
13. On the point of limitation the Forum has held that though the complaint was filed on 01.08.2000 it is still not barred by limitation, because after taking the possession of the tenement in Aug. 1996, the complainant has immediately raised his grievance regarding the deficiency in services rendered, with appellant / o.p. and therefore, the complaint doe not become time barred.
14. As regards the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of deficiency in service, the allegations made are mainly on the ground that the appellant are recovering service charges but are not providing the same.
15. The appellant / o.p. in its defense has mentioned that as per the rules these services have now been transferred to Gram Panchayat Sindi (Meghe) and Municipal Council, Wardha vide agreement dtd.20.12.1996. This agreement is on record and clearly shows that it is executed between the appellant MHADA & Gram Panchayat, Sindi (Meghe) and thereby the maintenance of roads, drainage, pump house, bore well, etc. is handed over to the Gram Panchayat Sindi (Meghe) free of charge. However, in spite of this position, the appellant / o.p. are recovering service charges from the respondent / complainant, which is further substantiated by the notice issued on 03.08.1999 by the appellant, wherein the appellants has claimed the service charges of Rs.2,210/- and earlier notice dtd.05.05.1998, claiming service charges of Rs.1,190/-.
16. The appellant / o.p. in its reply filed to the consumer complaint, have denied the fact that any service charges are recovered from the tenement holders. This is clearly in contravention to the documents filed on record and thereby holding deficiency in service, the Forum granted the relief as aforesaid.
17. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the original o.ps has filed the present appeal.
18. We heard Adv. Mr Hitesh Verma for the appellant. However, respondent, though duly served, remained absent and therefore, this appeal was heard exparte.
19. We perused the copies of impugned judgement & order, documents filed on record and find that the Forum has rightly held that as far as the issue of increase in price of tenement and recovery of balance amount is concerned, it does not fall within the purview of consumer dispute. Therefore, the Forum has restricted its adjudication of the consumer dispute regarding the deficiency in service, whereby o.p. is recovering the service charges but is not providing the same on the pretext of it being transferred to the Gram Panchayat.
20. The copies of the notices, issued by the appellant, seeking recovery of service charges from the complainant, the copy of the agreement executed between the appellant & Gram Panchayat Sindi (Meghe), transferring the maintenance rendering services to the Gram Panchayat, Sindi (Meghe) are on record which clearly reveal that the maintenance of the service came to be transferred to the Gram Panchayat, Sindi (Meghe) on 20.12.1996. However, the copies of the notices dtd.05.1998 and 03.08.1999 issued by the appellant regarding the recovery of service charges are subsequent to the said transfer. Therefore undisputedly the appellants have committed deficiency in service by recovering service charges and though it is not providing the same.
21. We find the impugned judgement & order and the findings therein to be just and proper. Hence, no interference is warranted.
In the circumstances, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. Appeal is dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost.
iii. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
