State Consumer Commission, Maharashtra · Appeal A/14/758 · 04.12.2017
A society’s claims against the builder must be valued properly for the right forum
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission set aside a District Forum award in a society’s complaint against its builder (for occupation certificate, taxes, conveyance and other reliefs), because the prayers taken together exceeded the District Forum’s ₹20 lakh limit; the society was left free to approach the proper commission.
Key points
- The society had sought, among other reliefs, an occupation certificate, payment by the builder of all municipal taxes due, refund of extra taxes and water charges, conveyance and repairs.
- A complainant must give a specific valuation for each prayer; the forum must decide a jurisdiction objection on that basis.
- The prayers together exceeded the District Forum’s then limit of ₹20 lakh, so its award was quashed, with liberty to file before the State or National Commission. The Commission also noted that no society resolution authorising the complaint had been produced.
The facts
Mhatre Palace CHS, a stilt-plus-ten-storey building of 40 flats in Borivali, filed a complaint in 2004 against its builders. Its prayers included obtaining the occupation certificate (or paying ₹3,800 per month until then), refund of society formation charges, payment to the BMC of all taxes due with interest, refund of excess water charges and taxes paid by the society, conveyance, completion of the fire hydrant system, a second lift, electric meters and a garden. The District Forum, Mumbai Suburban, passed an award in 2014. The builders appealed, arguing that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction.
What the Commission held
The State Commission held that although the complaint stated that the claim was below ₹20 lakh, the prayers, read together and including interest at 18% and monthly penalties from the 1990s, clearly exceeded that limit, and no statement of claim had been filed. When the society’s counsel was asked whether the society would restrict its claim to below ₹20 lakh, there was no answer. A complainant must value each prayer, and the District Forum ought to have decided the jurisdiction objection, as well as the absence of a society resolution authorising the complaint, before deciding the merits. The award was set aside with liberty to approach the State or National Commission according to the valuation.
Why it matters
The appellate order did not decide whether the builder must pay the taxes; it set aside the District Forum’s award on jurisdiction. For societies, the lesson is procedural: pass a general body or committee resolution authorising the complaint, value each relief, and file before the commission with the right pecuniary jurisdiction. The limits have since changed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and its 2021 rules, which fix jurisdiction by the consideration paid.
Five-page order in English. This page summarises the decision for general information; it is not a substitute for the full text and not legal advice. Check whether the decision has since been appealed, modified or overruled.
Have a question about your society?
Write to the office with a brief description of the matter. Meetings are by prior appointment.