State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
City And Industrial Development ... vs Mr. Shahjahan S. Sheikh on 27 August, 2012
Daily Order
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/06/1934
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 26/06/2006 in Case No. 298, 299/2001 of District Thane)
City and Industrial Development Corporation Of
Maharashtra Ltd.
Through its authorized signatory Subhash J. Gosavi
Cidco Bhavan, CBD-Belapur, Navi Mumbai
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
Mr. Shahjahan S. Sheikh
Building No.C-39/1:1, 1st floor,
Sector 21 & 22, Income-tax Colony,
Belapur, Navi Mumbai
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mrs.Madhura Nadgauda, Advocate for the Appellant
Respondent
present in person
ORDER
Per - Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar,
Member This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Opponent, namely - City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'CIDCO' for the sake of brevity) takes an exception to an order dated 26/6/2005 passed by the District Forum, Thane (hereinafter referred as 'the District Forum' for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2001, Mr. Sahajan Shekhlal Shekh Vs. C.I.D.C.O. [2] The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
The Respondent/original Complainant, namely - Mr. Shahjahan Sheikhlal Shekh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant' for the sake of brevity) had filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the CIDCO.
According to the Complainant, he had purchased from CIDCO a tenement bearing No.1:1 admeasuring 9.600 sq. meters, situated on the first floor in the Building D-39, Sectors 21 and 22 at C. B. D. Belapur vide an agreement dated 29/4/1999 for an agreed consideration of `3,43,799/-. On occupying the tenement, the Complainant found that during the rainy season of the year 1999 there was water-logging on the slab of the building and the saturated water percolated and there were leakages in his tenement. The plaster of the building being not proper the rain water percolated in his tenement. According to the Complainant, though the CIDCO advertised that the construction was of good quality, it was observed that it was of an inferior quality.
The Complainant further contended that he had informed the CIDCO vide his letters dated 30/7/1999, 7/6/2000, 14/7/2000, 21/3/2001 and 3/4/2001. However, CIDCO has not taken any cognizance of his complaints.
Hence, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the CIDCO and claimed an amount of `1,35,360/- by way of compensation towards mental agony together with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from 29/4/1999.
[3] CIDCO contested the complaint by filing its written version inter-alia contending that the contents of the complaint are false, frivolous and mis-conceived which are against the true state of affairs and prayed that same may please be rejected.
It is submitted on behalf of the CIDCO that it had advertised for the disposal of balance residential tenements of DRS-1987 Scheme. It was also specifically advised to the applicants that they should personally inspect the tenements before submission of their applications and if they are satisfied with the amenities and facilities provided and conditions for purchase of tenement then only may submit an application for purchase of a tenement. CIDCO contended that accordingly, the Complainant inspected the flat and submitted the application. On these grounds, CIDCO prayed that the complaint may please be dismissed.
[4] The District Forum on going through the complaint, written version filed by the CIDCO, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of the respective advocates, partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the CIDCO to pay to the Complainant, an amount of `34,510/-
and an amount of `15,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony within a period of two months and failing which the amounts were to carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, CIDCO preferred this appeal.
[5] We heard Adv. Madhura Nadgauda on behalf of CIDCO and the Respondent/original Complainant in person.
[6] At page (79) of the appeal compilation, there is an application bearing No.1997/09791 filed by the Complainant with the CIDCO for allotment of a tenement. One of the conditions incorporated in the allotment form is to the effect that the Complainant has inspected the tenement and he is ready to accept the same on 'as is where is' basis and he will not have any grievance regarding price, present status of the tenement or any deficiency in the tenement. On this basis the Complainant accepted the tenement.
In view of these statements in the allotment form, the Complainant is now stopped from raising any grievance in respect of the tenement. The District Forum overlooked these important facts and relying upon the affidavit filed by the Complainant to the effect that he had incurred expenses for repairs of the tenement, has granted the relief to the Complainant which will not stand in the eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 26th June, 2006 passed by the District Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2001 stands dismissed.
In the peculiar circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced on 27th August, 2012 [Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member kvs