State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Edwin Francis Miranda & Anr. vs Shri Abdul Majid Mohd. Khwaja & Anr. on 27 April, 2009
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.215 OF 2009 Date of filing : 21/02/2009 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.82/2005 Date of order : 27/04/2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, CENTRAL MUMBAI @ MISC.APPLICATION NO.349/2009 Shri Edwin Francis Miranda & Shri Terrel Cletus Miranda 201 & 402 A wing Miranda Apartment 1176 Veer Savarkar Road Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028 ..Appellants/org.complainants v/s. Shri Abdul Majid Mohd. Khwaja & Shri Bhalchandra A.Nerurkar Builders, Khwaja House Kapad Bazar Road Mahim, Mumbai 400 016 Respondents/org.O.Ps Corum: Shri S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt.S.P.Lale, Honble Member Present : Mr.A.S.Mascarenhas-A.R. for the appellant.
O R A L O R D E R Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1. Appellants have filed an application bearing no.349/2009 for expeditious hearing of the appeal on the ground that appellants being senior citizens. Application stands allowed.
2. This appeal is directed against the order/award passed in consumer complaint no.82/2005, Shri Edwin Francis Miranda & another v/s. Shri Abdul Majid Mohd. Khwaja & another. Appellants/org.complainants filed consumer complaint on 22/7/2005 alleging that they had entered into a Development agreement of their property with respondent O.P. Shri Abdul Majid Mohd. Khwaja as per agreement dated 18/9/1981. As per Agreement, he had received Rs.13,80,000/- However as per Agreement Rs.50,000/- from it were kept with Escrow agent M/s.Soloman and Co. Solicitor and escrow agent was to release the said amount to the complainant on its producing Income tax certificate under section 230-A of Income-tax Act. The complainant submitted that said requirement came to be deleted as per the amendment dated 1/6/2001 and in spite of that Rs.50,000/- are not released to them by the escrow agent and therefore they filed this consumer complaint, as relevant for this appeal. It may be pointed out here that the other relief claimed asking for compensation of the payment required to be made to the Revenue authority was already decreed in their favour by the impugned award/order.
3. Heard Mr.A.S.Mascarenhas-A.R. for the appellants.
Considering nature of escrow transaction, it cannot be said that O.P. has not paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants. In fact that amount is paid to them, but as mutually agreed between the parties kept with the escrow agent and the escrow agent was to release the said amount on satisfaction of certain conditions. Therefore it cannot be a consumer dispute as relevant to the present complaint and this appeal.
4. Furthermore, if according to the complainants, provisions of Section 230 A of Income tax Act were deleted on 1/6/2001, the cause of action for such relief as claimed in the consumer complaint arose in 2001, while consumer complaint is filed in 2005. For this reason also consumer complaint cannot be entertained. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned award as far as this appeal is concerned. We hold accordingly and pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Misc.application for expeditious hearing is allowed.
2. Appeal stands dismissed in limine.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode) Member Presiding Judicial Member Ms.