NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1061/2010

OM RANI TRILOKCHAND GROVER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ESTATE OFFICER CIDCO LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

03 May 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1061 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 08/12/2009 in Appeal No. 773/2007 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. OM RANI TRILOKCHAND GROVERShop No. 28, Sector No. I, C.B.D., BelapurNavi MumbaiMaharashtra ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ESTATE OFFICER CIDCO LTD.CIDCO Ltd., CIDCO Bhavan, C.B.D. BelapurNavi MumbaiMaharashtra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :IN PERSON
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 03 May 2010
ORDER

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.

 

          Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
          Factual matrix are that petitioner had taken a shop from respondent, which she wanted to transfer to Sri B.S.Shetty. She was asked to deposit transfer fee of Rs.12,152/-. The aforesaid transfer fee was deposited by petitioner. Respondent, however, did not accord permission for transfer of shop to Sri Shetty and also retained transfer fee collected from petitioner holding that some recovery was to be effected from petitioner. Aggrieved with refusal to refund of deposits made, a consumer complaint was filed with District Forum and District Forum having analyzed pleadings of parties, finding no merit dismissed complaint.   In appeal that
-2-
 

was preferred with State Commission, State Commission having taken notice of fact that since respondent had retained money since 1992, while directing respondent to refund aforesaid amount, also granted compensation in form of 6% p.a interest. Now petitioner is in revision for enhancement of compensation. Finding of State Commission was based on meticulous appreciation of issue warranting no interference in revision petition. In case respondent is to realise dues from petitioner, it is open to them to take recourse to separate proceeding. There being no merit in revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.



......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER