Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/210

RANJIT KANTILAL SHAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIPAK SHANKARRAO RASTE - Opp.Party(s)

ADV. MILIND H. OAK

02 Dec 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/210
(Arisen out of Order Dated 19/12/2009 in Case No. 393/2009 of District Satara)
1. RANJIT KANTILAL SHAHKRUTI CONSTRUCTION GROUP, AKSHAT PARK, SURVEY NO. 66/1, JADHAVWADI, TALUKA PHALTAN, DIST. SATARASATARA Maharastra ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. DIPAK SHANKARRAO RASTE AMIT COMPLEX, 'E' BUILDING, FLAT NO. 102, IN FRONT OF KAMAT HOSPITAL, CHINCHVAD GAON, PUNE - 411 033. PUNEMaharastra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENTHon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
PRESENT :ADV. MILIND H. OAK, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Respondent no.1 in person

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

 

This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19/12/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.393/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara. Complaint filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay an amount of `30,000/- which the respondent has paid to the appellant at the time of booking of the flat and it is further directed that by way of cost of the litigation and the mental harassment, amount of `2000/- be paid.

At the time of filing the appeal, appellant had deposited an amount of `16,000/- and, thereafter, as per order dated 03/3/2010 remaining amount of `16,000/- has been deposited by demand draft drawn on Vijaya Bank in favour of the State Commission.  Thus, the amount of `32,000/- as directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has been deposited in the office of the State Commission.

Matter was argued at length by Mr.Oak.  We need not record his statement but ultimately he wanted to take instructions from his client and he has taken instructions on mobile and reported to the Commission that appellant has instructed him to withdraw the appeal and, accordingly, pursis has been filed by Mr.Oak. In view of the pursis, we allow the appellant to withdraw the appeal. However, as a result of withdrawal of appeal, impugned order has been attained finality under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, respondent is entitled to recover an amount of `32,000/- as directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  As recorded in earlier part of this order, said amount has already been deposited with the State Commission.  Mr.Oak on instructions states that he has no objection to pay the said amount to respondent/original complainant.  Under these circumstances, we pass following order:-

                                      ORDER

Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn.

Registrar of State Commission is hereby directed to pay an amount of `32,000/- deposited by the appellant to the respondent nos.1&2.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 02 December 2010

[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase]PRESIDENT[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]Member