Case nº First Appeal No. 494 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 14/01/2016 in Complaint No. 485/2014 of the State Commission Maharastra) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, December 01, 2016 (case Fortune Investments Vs 1. Leela Mahal Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. and Anr 2. The Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation)
| Judge | For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate |
| President | Dr. B.C. Gupta,Presiding Member and Mr. Prem Narain,Member |
| Resolution Date | December 01, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
-
This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned interim order dated 14.01.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. CC/14/485, vide which, the said Commission admitted the complaint in question and adjourned the case for filing the written version of the parties.
-
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the consumer complaint no. 14/485 was filed by the present respondents, Leela Mahal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. before the State Commission, seeking directions to the appellant Fortune Investments to remove various deficiencies in construction, and also to provide compensation on account of their alleged deficient and negligent services. It was stated in the complaint that the appellant/builder be directed, inter-alia, to implement the terms of the agreement between the parties, to provide total accounts for the money received from the flat purchasers and to execute deed of conveyance etc. From the documents placed on record, it is made out that a reply to the complaint was filed before the State Commission by the OPs. On the date of the impugned order i.e. 14.01.2016, none was present for the appellant/OP-1, whereas the learned counsel for the OP-2, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, was present. As per the order recorded on 14.01.2016, the complaint was admitted and the matter was adjourned to 12.02.2016 for filing written version. The appellant has challenged the said interim order dated 14.01.2016, saying that the complaint was admitted without hearing the appellant on admission, despite the fact that they had taken a plea that the complaint was time barred. The learned counsel for the appellant could not appear on that date...
To continue reading
Request your trial