Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

CC/13/186

SHRI ROHAN RAMESH MANJREKAR THROUGH P.O.A.HOLDER SMT.RANJEETA RAMESH MANJREKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. RUPJI CONSTRUCTIOINS - Opp.Party(s)

30 Dec 2013

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL MUMBAI DISTRICT. Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd floor, Gen. Nagesh Marg, Nr. Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-12.

Complaint Case No. CC/13/186   1. SHRI ROHAN RAMESH MANJREKAR THROUGH P.O.A.HOLDER SMT.RANJEETA RAMESH MANJREKAR BUILDING NO.L-6-B, FLAT NO.102, 1ST FLOOR, SINDHUDURG CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, NEAR MALA GARDEN, PRATIKSHANAGAR, SION (EAST) MUMBAI CITY-400 022 MAHARASHTRA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. RUPJI CONSTRUCTIOINS GULMOHAR CO-OPRATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, 'C' WING, 2ND FLOOR, P.L.KALE GURUJI MARG, RANADE ROAD, NEAR WAMAN HARI PETHE JEWELLERS, DADAR(WEST), MUMBAI-400 028 MUMBAI CITY MAHARASHTRA 2. RUPJI CONSTRUCTIOINS GULMOHAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCITY LIMITED, 'C' WING, 2ND FLOOR, P.L.KALE GURUJI MARG, RANADE ROAD, NEAR WAMAN HARI PETHE JEWELLERS, DADAR(WEST), MUMBAI-400 028 MUMBAI CITY MAHARASHTRA 3. MADHUKAR RUPJI GULMOHAR CO-OPRATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, 'C' WING, 2ND FLOOR, P.L.KALE GURUJI MARG, RANADE ROAD, NEAR WAMAN HARI PETHE JEWELLERS, DADAR(WEST), MUMBAI-400 028 MUMBAI CITY MAHARASHTRA 4. TEJAL MADHUKAR RUPJI GULMOHAR CO-OPRATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, 'C' WING, 2ND FLOOR, P.L.KALE GURUJI MARG, RANADE ROAD, NEAR WAMAN HARI PETHE JEWELLERS, DADAR(WEST), MUMBAI-400 028 MUMBAI CITY MAHARASHTRA ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:     HON'ABLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR PRESIDENT   HON'ABLE MR. H.K.BHAISE MEMBER

PRESENT: Smt.Ranjeeta Ramesh Manjrekar, P.O.A. Holder     _____________

ORDER Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President   1)                Heard the representative of the complainant and perused the case papers. The complainant had already canceled the agreement and requested to refund the amount. Accordingly, the opponent has repaid the amount of Rs.6 Lakhs as part payment and agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs.9,12,500/-. The opponent failed to repay the balance amount therefore the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of the balance amount. The complaint is filed simply for recovery of the amount and there is nothing to do with the deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant can seek remedy in civil court. Our State Commission in the judgment of Zero Distance Private Limited –Versus- M/s.Lodha Crown Build Mart Private Limited in CC/12/286 decided on 6th November, 2012 has laid down as under :   Thirdly, agreement between the parties which is reflected from the allotment letter and subsequent cancellation of the same prior to filing of this complaint has resulted into termination of agreement and when the agreement is terminated, the general remedy of compensation under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is available. However, since the Complainant is not coming for removing the deficiency in service but is coming for recovery of the amount paid towards consideration together with interest thereon, it is simplicitor a claim for recovery of money which has nothing to do with deficiency in service. A claim for recovery of money simplicitor does not fall within the definition of ‘complaint’ as defined under Section-2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For all these reasons the complaint is not tenable and, therefore, we refrain to entertain this complaint.   2)                In the instant complaint before us also, the complaint is filed simplicitor for recovery of money. It has nothing to do with the deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. Hence, the following order.   ORDER   1)                Complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.   2)                Inform the parties accordingly.         Dated 30th December, 2013

[HON'ABLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR] PRESIDENT   [HON'ABLE MR. H.K.BHAISE] MEMBER