C.C. No. 14 of 2014. Case: Augusta Vaz Vs Govindraj Pai Kakode. Goa State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | C.C. No. 14 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: N. Kale, Advocate |
| Judges | N.A. Britto, J. (President) and Jagdish Prabhudessai, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24A |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 4 (Goa) |
| Judgement Date | June 16, 2014 |
| Court | Goa State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
N.A. Britto, J. (President)
-
We have heard Mr. N. Kale, the learned Advocate of the complainants, at the stage of admission of the complaint. This is a joint complaint filed by the complainants against OP No. 1 who was a builder and developer, and as such a service provider, and OP Nos. 2 to 4, which are the authorities under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
-
The facts would show that the complainants had purchased tenements from OP No. 1, the developer, and it appears that only complainant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into written agreements with OP No. 1 for the construction of the said tenements and the sale deeds in favour of complainant Nos. 1 and 2 were executed on 2.1.2007 and 16.1.2004, respectively. We are informed by Mr. Kale that the sale deeds in favour of other two complainants, were also executed around that time.
-
The sale deeds in favour of the complainants appear to have been executed even before the roof tops were constructed by OP No. 1 for the said tenements. However, OP No. 1 gave discount to the complainants and issued cheques to the complainants in the sum of Rs. 5,000 each in lieu of roof tops which were not constructed and this was around December 2007, but the said cheques bounced as a result of which the complainants were compelled, according to them, to spend a sum of Rs. 50,000 each to complete the roof tops.
-
The main grievance of the complainant is that OP No. 1, builder on or about 10.12.2007 started constructing illegal structures in the area reserved for parking which the complainants objected by filing complaints to the OPs (Nos. 2 to 4) and in view of their inaction were compelled to approach the High Court in Writ Petition No. 530/2008 filed by complainant No. 1 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 18.12.2008, after it was represented by OP No. 2, V. Panchayat (Respondent No. 1 therein) that an order of demolition of illegal construction was already passed. An allegation is also made in the complaint that in the month of March 2014 OP No. 1 has started the work of reconstructing the said structures which again compelled the complainants to file fresh complaints with OP No. 2, V. Panchayat which has again issued a notice to OP No. 1 and since no action has been taken, the complainants have again approached OP No. 4 which has issued notice to OP No. 2 and OP No. 2 has filed a reply and has claimed that OP No. 1 has been granted an interim order of stay by OP...
To continue reading
Request your trial