First Appeal No. A/06/2294 (Arisen out of Order Dated 21/09/2006 in Case No. 76/2001 of District Pune). Case: State Bank of India, Pune Vs 1. Jitendra Gujaba Pawar, 2. Manisha Jitendra Pawar, 3. Sudhakar Ramdayal Behedey, Partner of Behedey Brothers, Pune, 4. Rajendra Dnyaneshwar Kumbhar, Partner of Behedey Brothers, 5. Vijaya Sudhakar Behedey, Partner of Behedey Brothers, Through her Legal Heirs, 6. Nainesh S. Behedey, 7. Nilesh S. Behedey, 8. Ishant S. Behedey, 9. Behedey Brothers, Promoters and Builders, Pune. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
|First Appeal No. A/06/2294 (Arisen out of Order Dated 21/09/2006 in Case No. 76/2001 of District Pune)
|P. N. Kashalkar (Member) & S. P. Lale (Member)
|Consumer Protection Act
|February 14, 2011
|Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P. N. Kashalkar (Member)
This is an appeal filed by org. opponent No.5 against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.76/2001 decided on 21/09/2006. While allowing the complaint partly, District Consumer Forum directed under its award to Mr.Rajendra Dnyaneshwar Kumbhar, opponent No.2 and State Bank of India, opponent No.5 to jointly and severally pay a sum of 1 Lakh along with interest @ 12% p.a. and also directed to pay 1,000/- as costs to the complainants within two months. As such, org. opponent No.5/State Bank of India has come up in appeal before us.
The facts to the extent material to dispose of this appeal may be stated as under:-
Complainants had filed consumer complaint against five opponents inclusive of opponent No.1/Mr.Sudhakar Ramdayal Behede, opponent No.2/Mr.Rajendra Dnyaneshwar Kumbhar & opponent No.3/Mrs. Vijaya Sudhakar Behede, partners of M/s.Behede Brothers. They also impleaded opponent No.4/M/s.Behede Brothers and State Bank of India as opponent No.5. Complaint of the complainants was for recovery of possession of flat or alternatively for refund of consideration paid with interest together with cost and compensation for deficiency in service and for unfair trade practice. According to the complainants (Mr.& Mrs.Pawar), they had booked a flat No.6 in 'A' Wing building to be constructed as 'Behede Towers' for total consideration of 4,18,800/-. Agreement for sale was executed between complainants on the one hand and M/s.Behede Brothers, partnership firm on the other hand. According to the complainants, initially, the agreement executed on stamp paper of 100/-, but at the time of execution of agreement of sale, opponent No.2 represented them that he was partner of firm known as 'M/s.Behede Brothers' having 98% interest therein. He also stated that the partnership deed was executed between opponent Nos.1to4. Opponent No.5/State Bank of India, Main Branch, Pune sanctioned loan to the complainants for purchase of said flat. Loan of 3,25,000/- was sanctioned and out of which only 1 Lakh amount was disbursed to M/s.Behede Brothers by issuing a cheque to that effect. It was the contention of the complainants that they had instructed opponent No.5 to issue a cheque of 1 Lakh in favour of the firm i.e. M/s.Behede Brothers, but against their instructions, Bank had issued a cheque to opponent No.2, one of the partners of M/s.Behede Brothers and opponent No.2 had no exclusive authority to sell the flat. As such on cancellation of the alleged Sale Deed, opponent No.1 returned the amount to the complainants except 1 Lakh which the opponent No.4/firm asserted that it had not received the said amount...
To continue readingRequest your trial