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 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sau Anita Hari Jadhav & Anr vs Shri Nitin Namdeorao Gawade on 29 October, 2013

  
 
 
 
 
 
 BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
  







 



 
   
   
   


   
     
     
     

BEFORE THE
    HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
    
   
    
     
     

COMMISSION,  MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
    
   
  
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     
       
       
       

First Appeal
      No. FA/13/290
      
     
      
       
       

(Arisen out
      of Order Dated 30/08/2013 in Case No. 281/2011 of District Pune)
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     
       
       
       
         
         
         

1.

Sau Anita Hari Jadhav Flat No 11, Sunanda Apartments, Vivekanand Nagar, Baramati, Tal Baramati Dist.Pune Maharashtra

2. Shri Hari Maruti Jadhav Flat No 11, Sunanda Apartments, Vivekanand Nagar, Baramati, Tal Baramati Dist.Pune Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s)     Versus  

1. Shri Nitin Namdeorao Gawade Saraswati Bunglow, Krishi Colony, Devta Nagar Jalochi Tal Baramati Dist.Pune Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s)   BEFORE:

   
HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT   HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member   PRESENT:
Dr.S.A.Karandikar-Advocate ......for the Appellant     ORDER Per Honble Mr.Justice R.C.Chavan, President This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.281/2011 on 30/08/2013, whereby the forum dismissed the complaint. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The complaint was in respect of the claim of the complainants that they had booked the shop premises admeasuring 175 sq.ft. with the opponent for a price of `3,69,425/-.
Appellants claim to have paid various amounts to the opponent. However, opponent did not execute necessary agreement and, hence, the complainants filed the complaint.
Opponent appeared before the forum and since there was another complaint in respect of a flat, stated that the entire amount which was shown to have been paid was towards the purchase of the flat and not towards the shop. Appellants/original complainants could not show to the forum that any amount was paid by the appellant towards the costs of the shop. Even today the learned counsel for the appellants could not show as to how the appellants paid the amount in respect of purchase of shop. There is absolutely no error in the order passed by the forum. Appeal is therefore summarily dismissed.
Pronounced on 29th October, 2013.
   
[HON'ABLE MR.
JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT     [HON'ABLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.