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
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.
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.
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.
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 readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL