Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/747

P N RANGRAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S JAIN AND PORWAL - Opp.Party(s)

MRS D IYER

26 Oct 2010

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/10/747
(Arisen out of Order Dated 10/05/2010 in Case No. 130/09 of District Pune)
 
1. P N RANGRAJAN
FLAT NO 103 MAYURESH APT CTS NO 276/277 RASTA PETH PUNE 411011
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
2. MRS RAMA RANGRAJAN
FLAT NO 103 MAYURESH APT CTS NO 276/277 RASTA PETH PUNE 411011
pune
MAHARASHTRA
3. R VENKATRAMANAN
FLAT NO 303 MAYURESH APT CTS NO 276/277 RASTA PETH PUNE 411011
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
4. DR JANKI RAMANAN
FLAT NO 303 MAYURESH APT CTS NO 276/277 RASTA PETH PUNE 411011
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
5. SHRI RENGAN SRINIVASAN
FLAT NO 403 MAYURESH APT CTS NO 276/277 RASTA PETH PUNE 411011
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
6. SHRI VIJAY RENGAN
FLAT NO 403 MAYURESH APT CTS NO 276/277 RASTA PETH PUNE 411011
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/S JAIN AND PORWAL
INDRAPRASTA COMPLEX 589 RASTA PETH PUNE 411011
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
2. SHRI BHAWARLAL RIKHABCHAND JAIN
R/AT 37/1 GANESH NIWAS DHANKAWADI MAIN ROAD DHANKAWADI PUNE
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
3. SHRI KANTILAL JAIN
R/AT G 140 ADINATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY PUNE
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:Appellants & their Counsel absent.
 Respondent by Mr.Bhawarlal Jain, partner of M/s. Jain and Porwal.
ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

 

     Heard.  Perused the record. 

 

     In the instant case certain strange facts are alleged and styled as consumer complaint.  It is not disputed that nothing has been alleged relating to the consumer dispute in the complaint itself.  What has been alleged is that when the Complainants were enjoying exclusive possession over the disputed plot admeasuring 10’ x 4’ which is adjacent to their front door.  On 20.01.2009 staff of the Corporation came and dismantled the front door pointing to the fact that they are removing the encroachment.  It is only alleged that such action of the corporation officials was taken at the behest of Respondent/Opposite Party No.1, but, there is nothing on record to substantiate such allegations.  If Corporation has taken any action to remove the encroachment, certainly, that cannot be a consumer complaint because they were discharging their statutory duty.  In the circumstances, dismissal of consumer complaint cannot be faulted with and we find the appeal devoid of any substance.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

  (i)          Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected.

(ii)          No order as to costs.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING 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.