| First Appeal No. A/11/223 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 09/12/2010 in Case No. 188/2010 of District Satara) |
| | | | 1. M/S SWANAND CONSTRUCTION | | THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SURESH GOVIND JOSHI, R/AT 985, BHARAMANSHALI, WAI TAL. WAI, | | SATARA | | MAHARASHTRA |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. MR. KISHOR BALKRUSHNA SHETE | | THRU POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. VASANT KESHAV BHOSALE, R/AT SAVITRI SAHNIVAS, A WING, RAVIWAR PETH, WAI, TAL WAI, SATARA | | SATARA | | MAHARASHTRA | | 2. MR. PRATAP KISAN SAPKAL | | Thru Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Vasant Keshav Bhosale, 1 to 7 R/at Savitri Sahnivas, A Wing, Raviwar Peth, Wai, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. | | 3. MR. NITIN VASANT BHOSALE | | Thru Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Vasant Keshav Bhosale, 1 to 7 R/at Savitri Sahnivas, A Wing, Raviwar Peth, Wai, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. | | 4. SOPAN TUKARAM JAGDALE | | Thru Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Vasant Keshav Bhosale, 1 to 7 R/at Savitri Sahnivas, A Wing, Raviwar Peth, Wai, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. | | 5. SUHAS VASANT SUTAR | | Thru Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Vasant Keshav Bhosale, 1 to 7 R/at Savitri Sahnivas, A Wing, Raviwar Peth, Wai, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. | | 6. MR. ROHIDAS EKNATH MANDHARE | | Thru Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Vasant Keshav Bhosale, 1 to 7 R/at Savitri Sahnivas, A Wing, Raviwar Peth, Wai, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. | | 7. MR.JITESH MADHUKAR BAVLEKAR | | Thru Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Vasant Keshav Bhosale, 1 to 7 R/at Savitri Sahnivas, A Wing, Raviwar Peth, Wai, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. | | 8. MR.ASHOK ANANDRAO BODAKE | | R/AT-1583,NHAVE AALI, RAVIVAR PETH,WAI, DIST-SATARA. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Presiding Member: Heard Mr.M.P. Pore, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr.Jayant Gaikwad, Advocate for the Respondents on the point of admission. After hearing, the appeal was admitted and with the consent of both the parties we heard the appeal finally. The present appeal is filed under section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Advocate for the Appellant could not explain this anomaly satisfactorily. We have gone through the order passed by the District Forum and District Forum has simply directed the Opponents to complete the incomplete work as per the agreement and that too relying on the expert evidence submitted by the Respondents. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant. The order passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error from any angle. We do not find any substance or merit in the appeal. We hold accordingly and pass the following order: O R D E R Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Inform the parties accordingly. Pronounced on 2nd July, 2013. | |
