Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/1285

MRS GAUTAMI GOPAL MHADDALKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRS VASHA MIHIR ZARAPKAR - Opp.Party(s)

SANTOSH PATIL

22 Dec 2010

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/10/1285
(Arisen out of Order Dated 12/11/2010 in Case No. 11/2010 of District Ratnagiri)
 
1. MRS GAUTAMI GOPAL MHADDALKAR
R/AT AUDUMBAR NAGAR KUDAL TALUKA KUDAL
SINDHUDURG
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MRS VASHA MIHIR ZARAPKAR
R/AT FLAT NO S/3 DWARKA MAHAL SAI PLAZA AUDUMBAR NAGAR KUDAL
SIINDHUDURG
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:SANTOSH PATIL , Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
ORDER

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

Heard.  This appeal takes an exception to the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri in consumer Complaint No.11/2010 decided on 12/11/2010. By this appeal the appellant is directed to pay an amount of `29,800/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. By way of compensation for mental agony and cost `15,000/- have been granted.

          The appellant is the builder/developer is the admitted position. From the appellant, respondent had purchased flat is also an admitted position. However, after a period of one year, it was found that the wall had developed some cracks and also bath-room and w.c. have required some repairs. During the pendancy of the complaint, the Commissioner was appointed by the District Forum. The Commissioner has submitted report. That Commissioner’s report has not been denied by the appellant. Before the State Commission the appellant makes grievance that, he was absent at the time of commission and the Commissioner carried out his report behind his back. However, appellant still could have made grievance before the District Forum.  Before the District Forum the appellant could have filed another application for appointment of Commissioner and get another report. That he has not done. He has also option to get independent certificate from the Architect or Civil Engineer. That opportunity has also not been availed by the appellant. Only after passing of order by District Forum, he makes a grievance that permission for appointment of new Commissioner for inspection of the flat be given.  Such type of permission cannot be granted in the appeal.

          The District Forum has rightly considered the Commissioner report and on the basis of Commissioner’s report the District Forum has rightly passed the order. No interference is required. Appeal stands dismissed.

          The amount deposited along with this appeal shall be transferred to the District Forum to make payment to the original complainant.

 

Pronounced

Dated 22nd December 2010.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase]
PRESIDENT
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
Judicial Member
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member

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.