NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2470/2009

ANAND UTTAM KADAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

YAMINI VILAS LOKHANDE - Opp.Party(s)

MR. VINAY NAVARE

30 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 14 Jul 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2470/2009
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2009 in Appeal No. 1322/2007 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. ANAND UTTAM KADAMProp. Of M/s.Parimiti Developers. Office. at. 2001Harikunch CHS Limited 2nd Floor. Above. Jupiter Scan Centre Mahatama Gandhi Road, Naupada. Maharashtra Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. YAMINI VILAS LOKHANDEResiding at. 8, Shram Satalya Udkay Nagar, Panchpakadi Thane. -400602Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. VINAY NAVARE
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 30 Jul 2009
ORDER

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.

Opposite party has filed the present revision petition.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent/complainant approached the petitioner builder for construction of a Bungalow.  An Agreement was entered into between the parties on 24.8.2004 and as per the said agreement, price of raw house was fixed at Rs.5 Lacs and possession of the house was to be delivered by 31.3.2005.  Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- to the petitioner builder but possession of the house was not delivered by 31.3.2005.  Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

-2-

District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner builder to pay the sum of Rs.4,98,821/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a.

Aggrieved against this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed.

The foras below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner inspite of the Agreement arrived at between the parties, failed to complete the construction of raw house and deliver the possession.  Under the circumstances, foras below are justified in directing the petitioner to return the money deposited by the respondent along with costs with interest @ 9% p.a.  No merit in this revision petition.  Dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER