Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S Navin Vikas (P) Ltd vs Shri Uday Kiran Patil on 5 August, 2010

  
 
 
 
 BEFORE THE HON



 

 
    
     
     
       


       
       
       
       
       


      BEFORE 
      THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
       


      
      COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
    
    
  
   
      

  


    First 
    Appeal No. A/09/1309 
     

(Arisen out 
    of order dated 30/09/2009 in Case No. 51/2009 of District Additional DCF, 
    Thane) 
  
   
     
     

  


    1.   M/S 
    NAVIN VIKAS (P) LTD E-26 HAUS KHAS NEW DELHI 

    Maharastra 
     


     

    ....Appellant
     


    
     Versus 
     


    1.    
    
     

    
    SHRI UDAY KIRAN PATIL  402, SHRI NANDHAM, 4TH FLOOR PLOT NO 59 SECTOR 11 CBD 
    BELAPUR NAVI MUMBAI NAVI MUMBAI  

    Maharastra 
     


    2.    
    
    Shri Ashok 
    Kumar Jhajaria
     


    
         Director of M/s.Navin Vikas (P)Ltd.
     


    
                  E-26 HAUS KHAS 
    NEW DELHI
     


    
    ....Respondent
     


    First 
    Appeal No. A/09/1335 
     

(Arisen out 
    of order dated 30/09/2009 in Case No. 51/2009 of District Additional DCF, 
    Thane)
     


    3.    
     

               1. 
    Shri Ashok 
    Kumar Jhajaria
     


    
                Director of M/s.Navin 
    Vikas (P)Ltd.
     


    
                E-26 HAUS KHAS 
    NEW 
    DELHI                 Appellant
     


    
                            v/s.
     


    1.    
    
    SHRI UDAY 
    KIRAN PATIL  402, SHRI NANDHAM, 4TH FLOOR PLOT NO 59 SECTOR 11 CBD BELAPUR 
    NAVI  
     


         
                  MUMBAI NAVI MUMBAI  

            2.  M/S NAVIN VIKAS (P) LTD E-26 HAUS KHAS NEW DELHI 

                 Maharastra 
                                                 ...Respondents
     


     
     

 

    
     

 
     

 
  
   
     
     

 
  
  
   
     
     
        
         
         

 
        
         BEFORE :  
         
         


           
              
               
               

Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode , PRESIDING MEMBER

Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar , Member     PRESENT:

Mr.R.B.Patil-Advocate for original complainant.
Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for original O.P.no.1 Mr.J.M.Baphna-Advocate for original O.P.no.2.
     
*JUDGEMENT/ORDER Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.R.B.Patil-Advocate for original complainant.  Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for original O.P.no.1 and  Mr.J.M.Baphna-Advocate for original O.P.no.2.
By this common order appeal nos.1309/2009 and 1335/2009 are disposed of since they arise out of one and the same order passed in consumer complaint no.51/2009, Mr.Uday Kiran Patil v/s. M/s.Navin Vikas Pvt. Ltd. and another, dated 30/9/2009 and covers the identical facts and common issues of law.
Heard both the parties in both the appeals.  Both the appeals are admitted and heard forthwith with consent of parties.  In the instant case, Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals restricted their challenge to the direction given about car parking and the compensation awarded of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.  Other points are not pressed.
It is revealed and emerged as an undisputed fact that respondent/original complainant has no car against which he is making grievance for making available car parking space. It is also not disputed that society is yet to be formed. It is also submitted at Bar that issue of allotment of car parking would be a domain of the Society which is to be formed and the developer has nothing to do with it.  If there is no car then issue as to making available car parking space would not arise and, therefore, certainly, this cannot be a dispute between the flat purchaser i.e. complainant and developer and builder. Further, since there is no car, to make a statement that since the car parking space is not made available or that the security officials of the builder are taking objection for parking the car and, therefore, they could not purchase the car and, as such, suffered mental agony, is a fanciful claim which is traced to un-existence cause or too remote cause, reminding the Birbal story of cooking the rice (khichadi).  In this background no compensation could be awarded holding that there is deficiency in service.  Forum below erred on this count.  As far as award of costs by the forum below is concerned, since dispute also covers the issue of forming society and issue as to execution of conveyance which the builder/developer has ignored on the lame excuse that many of the flats are yet to be sold; we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.  For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
                                                ORDER
1.    

Appeal no.1309/2009 and appeal no.1335/2009 are partly allowed.

2.     Impugned order is modified.

3.     Direction as to allow the complainant to park his vehicle (which is not in existence) without any charge as well as direction to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- are set aside.

4.     Rest of the order stands confirmed.  

5.     No order as to costs.

 

Pronounced Dated the 05 August 2010 [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER   [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member