BUILDARCH & ANR ; MONISHT THAKOOR, PROPRIETOR OF BUILDAECH Vs. NEELAM M VICHARE & 2 ORS ; MADHUSUDAN R VICHARE; MANIK APARTMET CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under Section 19, read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 16-11-2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No.CC/01/295, vide which, while allowing the said complaint, the following order was passed:-

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants/respondents nos.1 & 2 entered into an agreement for purchase of flat No.73A in the building named as Manik Apartments at Dadar (W), Mumbai, constructed by the appellants/OPs 1 & 2 for consideration of Rs.9,35,000/-. The possession of the flat in question was delivered to the complainants, but without the occupancy certificate. It was alleged that the opponents failed to form a cooperative housing society of the flat-holders and also failed to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the cooperative housing society. The State Commission allowed the said complaint and passed the order as stated above.

(3.) The learned counsel further stated that there had been a delay of 332 days in filing the appeal in question, because they had decided not to file any such appeal and that they wanted to comply with the order of the State Commission and for that purpose, they had approached the OP-society to provide them the requisite documents to enable them to execute the conveyance deed. However, the said Society asked them to get the full occupation certificate. We had, therefore, approached the concerned Executive Engineer to issue the full occupation certificate and they were still pursuing the matter with the authorities of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The delay in filing the appeal should, therefore, be condoned.