Common oral order in A/12/173 + A/12/653

Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

          Heard Adv. Subodh Gokhale on behalf of the original Complainant, Smt. Devyani Yadav and Adv. Bindu Jain on behalf of the original Opponent No.1, Mr. Govind Bajaj.  Nobody appeared on behalf of the original Opponent No.3, Pratap Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

[2]     These two appeals arise out of an order dated 4/1/2012 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bandra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2010, Smt. Devyani Yadav Vs. Shri Govind Bajaj and Another.  Not satisfied with the order passed in her favour, the original Complainant, Smt. Devyani Yadav filed Appeal No.653 of 2012, while the original Opponent No.1, Mr. Govind Bajaj filed Appeal No.173 of 2012.  It is submitted at the stage of admission that both these appeals as well as original consumer complaint is not pressed against the original Opponent No.2, Pratap Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., of which the original Complainant, Smt. Devyani Yadav is a member.  Hence, the appeals, as against the Respondent –Pratap Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., are not admitted.

[3]     Admit against the Respondents – the Complainant or the Builder, as the case may be.  With the consent of the parties heard forthwith.

[4]     The dispute between the parties is confined to giving less area of the flat in the redeveloped property to the original Complainant - Smt. Devyani Yadav by the Builder - Mr. Govind Bajaj.  As stated earlier, it was agreed to give a flat admeasuring 464 sq. ft. in area.  However, in the settlement reached before the City Civil Court it was ultimately agreed to hand-over to the Complainant a flat admeasuring 360 sq. ft. in carpet area.  Grievance of the Complainant is that she was provided with a flat having area less than 300 sq. ft.  Thus, the dispute between the Builder and the Complainant is confined to the area of the flat which is given in possession of the Complainant.  It is submitted by both the parties as per their joint-pursis that they could not avail the opportunity given to lead their respective evidence before the Forum and they both want to lead proper evidence.  Without going into merits of that particular statement, we find that both the parties are not satisfied with the impugned order and they want an opportunity to lead their respective evidence so that dispute could be settled justly and properly.  We find substance in the submission and to do the substantial justice such course could be adopted.

          We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

ORDER

Appeals bearing Nos.173 of 2012 and 653 of 2012 are partly allowed.

Impugned order dated 04^th January, 2012 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2010 is set aside.  Consequently, the complaint without disturbing the order as against the original Opponent No.2, Pratap Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., is remitted back to the District Forum in the light of observations made in the body of the order.

Both the parties viz. the Complainant, Smt. Devyani Yadav and the original Opponent No.1/Builder, Mr. Govind Bajaj shall appear before the District Forum on 8^th January, 2013.  Thereupon both the parties shall given an opportunity to lead their respective evidence on affidavit and/or additional affidavit as per Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thereafter the dispute shall be settled as per law.

In the peculiar circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced and dictated on 26^th November, 2012