Complaint Case No. CC/11/268. Case: M/s. Tools International Vs Ramnik Lal Jetha Lal Shah. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case Number:Complaint Case No. CC/11/268
Party Name:M/s. Tools International Vs Ramnik Lal Jetha Lal Shah
Counsel:For the Appellant: Anil Jakatdar, Advocate
Judges:S.B. Mhase, President, S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member and Narendra Kawde, Member
Issue:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d), 2(l)(g), 2(l)(o)
Citation:2012 (1) CPR 243
Judgement Date:October 19, 2011
Court:Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


S.B. Mhase, President

  1. Heard Mr. Jakatdar, Advocate for Complainant thor­oughly to his satisfaction, This complaint has been filed by M/s Tools International, a partnership firm dealing in the business of importing and trading in industrial machin­ery. In order to carry out the said business, industrial machinery which is to be sold in the market is required to be stored in the godown and for the said purpose, initially the Complainant has purchased on 28.12.2007 patra shed godown No. B/70 on the ground floor, admeasuring 14404.00 sq. ft. equivalent to 1338.94 sq. mtrs. The said Sale Deed was duly registered with the Reg­istrar on 14.01.2008 and Opponent handed over the possession of the said godown No.B/ 70 to the Complainant on or about 18.6.2008.

  2. The said godown thus sold alongwith land. It is the case of the Complainant that the land and super structure both are sold by the Opponents to the Complainant. It appears that there was some difficulty in the contents of the Sale Deed and therefore, Rectification Deed was carried out on 24.11.2008 and it appears that in the ear­lier Sale Deed, the serial number was shown as 'Survey N.49, Hissa No,13' instead of 'Survey No.54, Hissa No.1. It is the case of the Complainant that there was an error in the survey number and said error was cor­rected. Thus what we find to note that it completely constructed godown with land under it was sold and handed over posses­sion of it was handed over to the Complain­ant.

  3. The Complainant has further admit­ted in the complaint that on 9.1.2009, no­tice in respect of illegal construction of the said godown was issued by the Tahsildar, Bhivandi and it was served on the Oppo­nent. However, Complainant alleged that information in respect of the service of the said notice by the Tahsildar on Opponent was not disclosed or informed to the Com­plainant by the Opponent. In the result, on 6.4.2009, Tahsildar demolished said godown partly as according to the Tahsildar, said godown was constructed unauthorisedly on a government land. It further appears that at a subsequent stag, the Tahsildar finally and fully demolished said godown on 25.7.2009 and thus the machinery which was in the said godown came under scrap.

  4. Thereafter, as alleged by the complain­ant, the Opponent gave two other godowns being godown No. B/72 and B/73 to the Com­plainant sometime in October 2009. Those godowns were incomplete in construction and according to the Complainant, Opponent was supposed to construct the remain­ing part of the, godowns...

To continue reading