State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Rajesh Kantilal Runwal And Others vs Jaysingpur Krishi Utpanna Bajar Samiti on 9 April, 2009
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.1106 to 1109 OF 2007 Date of filing : /2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NOs.480/2006 & 14/2007 to 16/2007 Date of order : 09/04/2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, KOLHAPUR 1.
Shri Rajesh Kantilal Runwal (in A/1106/07) Through Proprietor Shri Rajesh K.Runwal Through power of attorney holder Shri Kantilal Milapchand Runwal R/o.5th lane, Station Road, Jaysingpur Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur
2. Kantilal & Co. through HUF (In A/1107/07) Shri Kantilal Milapchand Runwal R/o.5th lane, Station Road, Jaysingpur Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur
3. Kantilal Dharamchand through (In A/1108/07) Shri Kantilal Milapchand Runwal R/o.5th lane, Station Road, Jaysingpur Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur
4. Bharat Tobacco Company through (In A/1109/07) Sou.Vimaladevi Kantilal Runwal through P/A holder Shri Kantilal Milapchand Runwal R/o.5th lane, Station Road, Jaysingpur Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur ..Appellants/org.complainants v/s.
The President Jaysingpur Krishi Utpanna Bajar Samiti Jaysingpur, Taluka Shirol, Dist.Kolhapur Respondent/org.O.P. Corum: Justice Shri B.B.Vagyani, Honble President Shri S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member Present : Mr. D.D.Magdum-Advocate for the appellants.
O R A L O R D E R Per Justice Shri
B.B.Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr.D.D.Magdum-Advocate for the appellants.
Perused the common judgement dated 31/7/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur. District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur dismissed the complaints. The Lease deed was executed in respect of open plots in the year 1992. Plots were not demarcated. Plots were demarcated in the year 2004. When notices were sent to the appellants in the matter of recovery of non agricultural cess, local fund and service tax, the consumer complaints are filed. Moreover, entries were not made in the Revenue record. This was the main grievance of the present appellants. Consumer complaints were however filed in the year 2006-2007. Appellants brought stale claim before the Consumer Court. They approached Consumer Forum after about 14 years. Moreover, dispute involved in the so called consumer complaints is not a consumer dispute. Dispute is with regard to immovable property. Dismissal order is therefore perfectly legal and correct. No interference is called for. In the result, we pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.R.Khanzode) (B.B.Vagyani) Judicial Member President Ms.