Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/06/622

Mr. Nandkumar Bala Shinde - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Paranjape Construction Co. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/06/622
(Arisen out of Order Dated 10/02/2006 in Case No. 238/03 of District Mumbai(Suburban))
 
1. Mr. Nandkumar Bala Shinde
C-1, Taruvel Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Tarun Bharat, Sahar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400 099.
Mumbai
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Paranjape Construction Co.
34, M. G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400 057
Mumbai
Maharashtra
2. Mr. Jayant M. Paranjape (Partner)
34, M. G. Road, Vile Pale (E), Mumbai 400 057.
Mumbai
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:
Both parties are absent.
......for the Appellant
 
ORDER

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

          Both parties are remaining absent in spite of notice published on the Notice Board as well as on the Internet Board of this Commission.  By way of abundant precaution, intimation of today’s date was even given by post through this Commission on 18/11/2011.  Under the circumstances, since it is an old matter, we prefer to consider this appeal on merit.

 

2.       This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10/02/2006 passed in consumer complaint No.238/2003, Mr.Nandkumar Bala Shinde V/s. M/s.Paranjape Construction Company & Ors. passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban  (‘the Forum’ in short).

 

3.       It is the case of the appellant/complainant that he had booked a flat in proposed housing scheme of respondent No.1/M/s.Paranjape Construction Company.  However, said construction could not come up and he could not be allotted a flat and therefore, he filed a consumer complaint.  The Forum by partly allowing the complaint, directed the opponents to refund amount of consideration received along with interest and further directed to pay `5,000/- as compensation and `2,000/- as costs.  However, not satisfied with the same, org. complainant has preferred this appeal.

 

4.       In the instant case, booking of flat in a private scheme is not in dispute.  However, simultaneously, it is brought to the notice that the changes in the planning authorities and submission of changes in layouts as per requirement of these authorities, the scheme could not be completed.  Since, allotment was to be made on the priority basis, no allotment could be made in favour of the complainant.  There was litigation which fought upto the Supreme Court.  Under the circumstances, we find no fault with the impugned order directing to refund consideration paid along with interest.  We find appeal is devoid of any substance and hence, holding accordingly pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal is not admitted and dismissed accordingly.

2.       No order as to costs.

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

 

Pronounced

Dated 13th December 2011.

 

 
 
[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.