State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Kishore Ramchandra Bhide vs M/S. Habitat India Agro Development ... on 5 January, 2012
A-1733/2006
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/05/595
(Arisen out of Order Dated 28/02/2005 in Case
No. 419/96(541/97) of DCF, South Mumbai)
1. Shri. Kishore Ramchandra Bhide
243/6289, Gulmohar, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 075.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Habitat India
Agro Development Pvt. Ltd.,
Jiwan Sahakar, Sir. P. M. Road,
Mumbai - 400 001.
2. Green Acres
Horticultural Development Co. Op. Hsg.
Society Ltd.
Dolkham, Tal. Shahapur, District Thane
3. Mr. S. W. Sngamnehri, Managing Director
Habitat India Agro
Development Pvt. Ltd., Jiwan Sahakar, Sir. P. M. Road, Mumbai 400 001.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING
MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Both parties are absent.
ORAL ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is preferred against the order dated 28/02/2005 passed in consumer complaint No.419/1996 (New No.541/1997), Shri Kishore Ramchandra Bhide V/s. M/s.Habitat India Agro Development Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai. Dismissal of the consumer complaint resulted into filing of this appeal by the original complainant.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he is a member of respondent No.2-Green Acres Horticultural Development Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. which was established for development of horticulture and promoting agricultural activities. Said Society has purchased huge agricultural land at Shahapur and one plot No.7 at Survey No.88 was allotted to the complainant and the opponent/Society was supposed to construct for the complainant a Farm House thereon. The project could not be proceeded further due to stay granted by the authority. Therefore, ultimately, after lapse of about 5 years from the date of original agreement, this consumer complaint is came to be filed to get refund of the amount paid of `2,18,500/- out of total consideration of `3,30,950/-
along with interest @ 21% p.a. The complaint as stated earlier stood dismissed.
3. Both the parties are remaining absent in spite of notice published on the Notice Board of this Commission, Bar and on the Internet. It appears that the original complainant has not shown any interest to prosecute this appeal.
4. Perused the record. It could be seen that the appellant/complainant is the member of the Society. Considering the doctrine of mutuality, we cannot take cognizance of the grievance of present nature. In the given circumstances, particularly, when the Society itself could not be proceeded with the intended construction of Farm House and other activities and, also not undergo with the land of horticulture for the benefits of the members, particularly, when the authority by their prohibitory order made standstill the project. The Forum rightly held accordingly. Apart from this, considering the nature of the activities for which alleged services of the society were hired, it is a commercial purpose being a horticulture business. Therefore, the complainant is also not a consumer and it is not a consumer complaint. For all these reasons, the order passed by the Forum is not faulted with. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 5th January 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER dd