First Appeal No. 556 of 2012. Case: C.S. Mathkar Vs Buildarch Sankalp. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 556 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Digambar Thakar, Adv. and For Respondents: S.B. Prabhawalkar, Adv. |
| Judges | R.C. Chavan, Presiding Member and Narendra Kawde, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 27 |
| Citation | 2015 (2) AllMR 99 |
| Judgement Date | January 05, 2015 |
| Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Judgment:
R.C. Chavan, Presiding Member
-
This appeal is directed against the order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai District disposing of Execution Proceedings No. 80/2008. Facts which are material for deciding the appeal are as under:--
Appellant/original complainant had filed complaint No. 11/2008 before the Central Mumbai District Forum in respect of some deficiencies in service about the flat booked by him. Complaint was allowed by the District Forum in the following terms:--
(i) The opponent is directed to pay Rs. 19,33,789/- to the complainant as per statement of calculation at Annexure-I to the Written Argument of the complainant.
(ii) The opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony and torture caused to him.
(iii) The opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
(iv) The opponent is directed to comply with the order within 4 weeks from the receipt of the copy hereof, in default interest @ 18% p.a. shall be applicable instead 9% from the date of default.
-
Opponent preferred an appeal bearing No. 1396/2008. This appeal was filed on 24/10/2008. When the appeal was filed execution of the impugned order had been stayed. Said appeal was allowed by an order dated 05/11/2009 and impugned order was set aside. The complainant challenged the said order of this Commission by filing Revision Petition No. 34/2010 before the Hon'ble National Commission. Hon'ble National Commission set aside the order of this State Commission and restored the order of District Forum except for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Opponent filed Special Leave Petition No. 4125/2011, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 04/02/2011.
-
Complainant had already filed execution application u/s. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in 2008 itself seeking refund of Rs. 19,33,789/-. It appears that the amount of Rs. 19,33,789/- along with costs was paid to the complainant possibly on 28/02/2011 or by 04/03/2011, after Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 04/02/2011. The complainant claimed that he was entitled to recover interest of Rs. 8,70,205/- as per the item No. 4 of the order of the District Forum quoted above and therefore, alleged that the order was not complied and it should be executed U/s. 27 of the Act. The complainant had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission [1999 (2) CPR 26 (NC)]...
To continue reading
Request your trial