Marathon Realty, a Mumbai-based realty firm, had advertised sale of flats in five projects to be constructed at Mulund. Individual agreements were executed with the flat purchasers in 2009. The company was to provide a three-level basement parking, the advertisement said. The company failed to give possession of flats on time. In September 2013, the company handed over possession of flats, but did not give access to the basement.
Home buyers received occupancy certificates on March 29, 2014, after which only one of the three basements was handed over. In April 2014, the builder commenced the construction of basements beneath the proposed recreation ground.
The flat owners of one of the projects, Monte Vista, set up the Monte Vista Residence Welfare Association, as they were apprehensive that the builder might create a third-party interest in basements. They wanted to collectively fight the builder, who had also started illegal construction, deviating from the approved layout plan, which provided for an open garden.
The association moved the Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking to stop the builder's plan, as the latter had not taken consent of the flat buyers for changing the layout plan, though such permission is mandatory under section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act.
The commission granted interim injunction, restraining the builder from the construction. Since this order was passed even prior to admitting the complaint, it was set aside by the national commission in an appeal filed by the builder.
After the complaint was admitted by the state commission, the builder filed another appeal questioning the admission of the complaint by the state commission without recording any reasons. The builder argued the setting aside of the interim injunction established that the complaint was devoid of substance. So, the appeal should not be entertained.
The national commission observed that a speaking or reasoned order is not required for the admission of a complaint, when an apparent case of deficiency in service is made out and the complaint is filed within the limitation period. A temporary injunction is to be granted considering the balance of convenience, such that no harm is caused to any party. Merely because the temporary injunction was set aside would not lead to an inference that the complaint was unfit for admission. The builder would be entitled to contest the complaint on all legal and factual questions by filing his version. The state commission would consider all the defences at the time of finally deciding the complaint.
By its order of on September 24, passed by Justice K S Chaudhari, the national commission refused to entertain the builder's appeal and dismissed it, holding that a reasoned order is not required for admission of a complaint.
The writer is a consumer activist
