State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Santosh Sidharth Kadam vs M/S Gokhale Patwardhan Co on 11 February, 2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/16/1045
1. Mr.Santosh Sidharth Kadam
R/o.Plot no.26, Rukmini Garden
Wanless Wadi, Miraj
Taluka Miraj, District Sangli
2. Sou.Jyotsna Santosh Kadam
R/o.Plot no.26, Rukmini Garden
Wanless Wadi, Miraj
Taluka Miraj, District Sangli .....Appellants
Versus
1.M/s.Gokhale Patwardhan Co.
Through legal authorized person
Having office at Near AP Bakery
Station Road, Miraj
Taluka Miraj, District Sangli
2. Mr.Pradeep Moreshwar Patwardhan
R//o.Yash Bungalow
Sarang Residency, Shivai Nagar
Miraj, Taluka Miraj, Dist.Sangli
3. Sou.Shaila Vinayaka Gokhale
R/o.Bhagyatara, Pratap Colony
Station Road, Miraj .........Respondents
Taluka Miraj, District Sangli
BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
A.K.Zade, Member
ORAL ORDER
Per Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Heard Mr.Rahul Khot-Advocate h/f.Mr.Nagesh Chavan -Advocate 1 with authority letter for appellant and Mr.Ajay Pawar-Advocate for respondent.
By this appeal validity and legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 18/03/2016 is under challenge, which was decided by the Learned District Forum, Sangli, whereby complaint was dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.5000/- payable by complainant to the opponent. This order it appears is a detailed order which is based upon compromise agreement which was signed by the rival parties i.e. Santosh Sidharth Kadam, Jyotsna Santosh Kadam and M/s.Gokhale Patwardhan Company through partner Mr.Pradeep Moreshwar Patwardhan. Admittedly, the compromise was signed between the parties. The recitals in the agreement of compromise reflects upon the fact that party no.2 completed the construction within time and informed the complainants, namely, Santosh Sidharth Kadam and Jyotsna Santosh Kadam. The parties also agreed demands towards VAT & Service tax and settled their consumer dispute with No Dues Certificate and possession letter. It is under these circumstances that party no.1 agreed that they had appropriately seen the entire construction and took possession and that they will not have any complaint in future as well clearly acknowledging that the said agreement was binding between the parties which occurred on 10/04/2013.
Now according to learned Advocate for the appellants, subsequently they found some defects and for which the complaint was made. In our view, after possession has been taken unconditionally without any complaint assuring the opponents that there would be no complaint in future in writing under the agreement of compromise, which has been referred to by the Learned Forum in para 23 in the concluding findings, we find that the impugned judgment and order is sustainable according to law and does not require any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. That being so, appeal is dismissed with additional costs of Rs.5000/- payable by 2 appellants to the respondents. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 11th February, 2019.
[Justice A.P.Bhangale] PRESIDENT [A.K.Zade] MEMBER Ms 3