Case nº First Appeal No. 125 Of 2010, (Against the Order dated 15/02/2010 in Complaint No. 34/1998 of the State Commission Maharastra) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 09, 2010 (case 1. Abhirashi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2. Mr.Shripad Shankar Agashe 3. Mr.Pandurang Vishwanath Agashe Vs Hemant Dattatraya Sonsale)
|Judge:||For Appellants : Mr. Rahul Gandhi, Advocate and For Respondent : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate|
|President:||Mr. R.C. Jain ,Presiding Member and Mr. Anupam Dasgupta ,Member|
|Resolution Date:||July 09, 2010|
|Issuing Organization:||National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission|
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member (Oral)
3 days delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.10 passed by the Maharasthra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in consumer complaint no.34/98. The complaint before the State Commission was filed by the respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant builder and seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) That this complaint may please be admitted.
(b) That the opposite parties may be directed to pay and a decree be issued in favour of the complainant for payment of Rs.6 lakh being the compensation for the damages caused to the complainant on account of inconvenience and harassment and the loss suffered.
(c) That the opposite parties may be directed to register the society immediately and further be directed to give copies of the document like sanctioned plans from time to time alongwith th latest sanctioned plan, occupation certificate issued, if any, and the names of the purchasers and particulars of the units on the ground floor and details of the units
(d) That the opposite parties may be directed to provide car parking / scooter parking spaces as required under the Development Control Rules or such other rules as applicable.
(e) That the opposite parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- collected by them alongwith interest at the rate of 21% per annum till date of payment to the complainant.
(f) That cost of this complaint may please be provided for."
The complaint was resisted by the opposite party builder on variety of grounds and one of the objections raised was with regard to the competence and pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain and deal with the complaint because the claim of complainant was for much less than the Rs.20 lakhs. Complaint was also contested on the ground that the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation as the possession of the flat in question was handed over on 8.11.93 and the complaint was filed on 7.1.98. The State Commission, on consideration of matter and going by the actual position that the occupancy certificate was not provided by the builder to the complainant and the society was not registered despite receipt of a sum of Rs.10,000/- by the builder, over-ruled the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and limitation and partly allowed the complaint in the following...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL