Complaint Case No. CC/12/212. Case: Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pv.T Ltd.,Through Its General Manager Mr. Jaikishan Manilal Parmar Vs M/S Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd (Western Region). Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Complaint Case No. CC/12/212 |
| Counsel | For the Complainant: Adv. Apollo Moghe proxy advocate for Adv. Asgarali A. Shaikh and For the Opponent: Adv. Rushabh Javeri instructed by Udwadia, Udeshi & Argus Partners |
| Judges | Mr. S.B.Mhase President, Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member and MR. Narendra Kawde Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) |
| Judgement Date | October 31, 2012 |
| Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Mr. S. B. Mhase, President
-
Adv. Apollo Moghe proxy advocate for Adv. Asgarali A. Shaikh is present on behalf of the Complainant. He files letter of authority. It is taken on the record. Adv. Rushabh Javeri instructed by Udwadia, Udeshi & Argus Partners is present on behalf of the Opponent. He undertakes to file Vakalatnama. His undertaking is taken on the record. Heard both the learned advocates.
-
This complaint has been filed by Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Present complaint has been filed through its General Manager, Mr. Jaikishan Manilal Parmar. Admittedly, the Complainant Company is a Builder/Developer carrying out construction activity. Therefore, business of the Complainant Company is to construct housing and/or non-housing projects within the vicinity of the MumbaiCity. The Complainant Company has given a contract to supply and install elevators in Building No.1 at Thokersey Chawl, situated at plot bearing C. S. No.295 of Lower Parel Division, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Worli, Mumbai -- 400018. Since those elevators were not supplied and installed within stipulated period, present complaint has been filed. In the prayer clause of the complaint, the Complainant has claimed from the Opponent an amount of `61,22,641/- towards the expenses incurred by the Complainant in providing rent/compensation to the tenants/occupants of the Building No.1, referred to above. The Complainant has also claimed from the Opponent an amount of `30,00,000/- by way of compensation towards loss, harassment, hardship undergone and loss of reputation caused to the Complainant due to the delay in installation of the elevators. By way of costs of the complaint, the Complainant has claimed an amount of `10,000/-. These are the facts stated in the complaint itself and for which, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial