Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/09/1238

M/S RAJDIN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S RAJDIN APARTMENT CHS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

J M BAPHANA

25 Oct 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/09/1238
(Arisen out of Order Dated 18/07/2009 in Case No. 430/2007 of District Thane)
1. M/S RAJDIN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERSRABODI THANE Maharastra ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. M/S RAJDIN APARTMENT CHS LTDTEEN HATH NAKA THANE (W)Maharastra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT :J M BAPHANA, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr.Gogate, Advocate for the respondents.

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 Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

 

          This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 18/07/2009 in consumer complaint No.430/2007, M/s.Rajdin Apartment Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. V/s. M/s.Rajdin Builders & Developers, passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane.  It is a dispute between the Society and developer/builder and after hearing both the parties, Forum below gave directions of execution of conveyance, to take steps to clear debris, to provide electric meter, to take steps to change the name of the electric connection in the name of society members, granted compensation of `20,000/- towards mental torture, `10,000/- as cost and also gave a direction as per Para 4 of the operative part of the impugned order that the builder/developer-O.P.No.1 shall refund amount of `75,000/- accepted towards maintenance.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, O.P./builder/developer preferred this appeal.

          Today, it is submitted before us that no settlement is possible.  It is also submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that he wants to confine this appeal against direction of refund of `75,000/- given in Para 4 of the operative order, supra.  No other points are raised.

          Referring to the statement made in the complaint, particularly, prayer 15(e), relief is claimed as under :-

“e)    To direct the Opposite Parties to pay to Complainant a sum of `75,000/- being arrears of maintenance and other charges payable by Opposite parties by end of June 2007.”

         

          Thus, it is not the case that `75,000/- were paid to the builder towards maintenance.  Therefore, to give any direction to refund is contrary to the fact as alleged by the party and even relief claimed by the complainant.  Thus, direction, therefore, needs to be set aside by allowing this appeal.  It may be noted that for the reliefs not granted as prayed, the complainant has not preferred any appeal.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal is partly allowed.

2.       The impugned direction of refund of `75,000/- as per Para 4 of the operative part of the impugned order is set aside.  Rest of the order stands confirmed.

3.       No order as to costs.

4.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 25 October 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]Member