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

Sou.Kanchan Nivrutti Chavan-Patil And ... vs Sou.Anjali Surendra Sardar on 31 January, 2009

  
 
 
 
 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION



 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
COMMISSION
 


MAHARASHTRA
STATE, 
MUMBAI
 


FIRST APPEAL NO.1571 OF 2008             
                   Date of filing : 15/12/2008
 


IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.295/2006       Date of 
order : 31/01/2009
 


DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SANGLI
 


@ MISC.APPLICATION NOs.2214& 2215/2008
 


 
 


1. Sou.Kanchan Nivrutti Chavan-Patil
 


2. Shri Nivrutti Yashwant Chavan-Patil
 


Both R/o.Shri Sadguru Bunglow
 


Samrudhinagar, Near Laxmi
Temple
 


Kupwad Road, Vishrambag, Sangli               
Appellants/org.O.P.nos.2&3
 


V/s.
 


1. Sou.Anjali Surendra Sardar
 


R/o.Flat no.A.W.4
 


Kalpataru Housing society, Miraj Road
 


Sangli, Through Power of Attorney holder
 


Shri Prabhatkumar R.Salavi       
                   Respondent/org.complainant
 


2. Kalpataru Co-op.Housing Society Ltd.
 


Opp.Govt. Guest House
 


Vishrambag, Sangli                                     

 


3. Shri Anil Shantilal Bafna
 


R/o. Opp.Govt. Guest House
 


Vishrambag, Sangli 416 416
 


4. Shri Manjit R.Bhatiya
 


R/o.Sangli Indore Road lines
 


Vishrambag, Sangli 416 416
 


5. Shri Suresh Prataprao Rochlani
 


R/o.Osian Electrical, Harbhat Road, 
 


Sangli 416 416
 


6. Shri Madhukar Shankar Koshti
 


R/o.Near Willingdon College
 


Vishrambag, Sangli 416 
416                          ..Respondents/org.O.Ps 
 


 
 


 Corum:  
Justice Mr.B.B.Vagyani, Honble President                    
 


                       
Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member
 


 Present:  
Mr.B.M.Patil-Advocate for the appellant.  
 


    Mr.M.S.Kumthekar-Advocate @ Mr.K.T.Pawar-Advocate

 


    for the respondent no.1/org.complainant

 


    Mr.H.R.Yadav-Advocate for 
respondent nos.2 to 6. 
 


 
 


                            
 : ORDER:

Per Justice Mr.B.B.Vagyani, Honble President

1.       Heard Mr.B.M.Patil-Advocate for the appellant.  Mr.M.S.Kumthekar-Advocate @ Mr.K.T.Pawar-Advocate for the respondent no.1/org.complainant and Mr.H.R.Yadav-Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 6.

2.       This appeal filed by original O.P.nos.2 & 3 in consumer complaint no. 295/2006 is directed against the order dated 03/12/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sangli. District Consumer Forum allowed the consumer complaint and directed present appellants to execute Conveyance deed in favour of the complainant.  District Consumer Forum further directed to pay Rs.100/- per day, if Conveyance deed is not executed. District Consumer Forum has awarded Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for mental harassment to the complainant, besides Rs.2000/- by way of cost of the proceedings.

3.       There is delay of 11 months in filing the appeal.  Therefore application for condonation of delay is filed.  Prayer for condonation of delay is strongly opposed by the Advocates of respondents on the ground of inordinate delay.  No doubt delay is inordinate.  But we are inclined to condone the delay taking into consideration illegality committed by the District Consumer Forum. District Consumer Forum has entertained the complaint treating the complainant as a Consumer.  In fact no consumer dispute is involved in the so called consumer complaint.  Misc. application no.2214/2008 is allowed.  Delay is condoned on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- each to be paid to the respondent nos.1 & 2. 

4.       We carefully examined the correctness of the order in the light of material placed on record, particularly, Agreement for Sale dated 30/4/1997.  District Consumer Forum has made reference of this Agreement for sale in the judgement.  District Consumer Forum has also observed in the body of the judgement that the Agreement for sale is perused.  It appears that the District Consumer Forum cursorily perused the recitals of the Agreement for sale without application of mind.  If mind would have been applied, the District Consumer Forum would not have entertained the so called consumer complaint.

 

5.       Recitals of the Agreement for sale dated 30/4/1997 would clearly go to show that the two flats were purchased by the present appellants from the Chairman of the Kalpataru Housing Society Ltd., Sangli.  They are members of Co-operative Housing Society.  It is stated in the Agreement for Sale that the appellants have paid Rs.2,30,000/- to the Kalpataru Co-op. Housing society as a consideration for two flats.  Appellants were not in a position to complete the sale transaction.  They decided to sell the flat to the original complainant. The transaction with regard to immovable property is made between purchaser and owner of the immovable property.  Complainant has not purchased a flat from Kalpataru Co-op. Hsg. Society.  There is no privity of contract between complainant and Kalpataru Co-op. Hsg. Society.  The complainant is not the member of Co-operative Housing Society. The present appellants are not carrying on business of construction.  They are not traders. They are not service providers.  Therefore, complainant is not a Consumer.  No consumer dispute is raised in the so called consumer complaint.  Complaint filed by respondent no.1 therefore is liable to be dismissed.

6.       During course of arguments, it is transpired that the amount received from the complainant is made over to Kalpataru Co-op.Hsg.Society.  The Kalpataru Co-op. Hsg. Society admits to have received Rs.65,000/-.  The price of the flat is Rs.1,80,000/-.  Ld.Advocate Mr.H.R.Yadav for Kalpataru Co-op. Hsg. Society conveyed to us during course of arguments that if entire consideration is paid to the Co-op. Hsg. Society, Kalpataru Co-op. Hsg. Society is ready to execute Conveyance deed in favour of the complainant.  We asked Ld.Advocate Mr.Kumthekar for the complainant as to whether the proposal made by Advocate of the Co-operative Housing Society is acceptable to his client.  Complainant is not ready to pay entire consideration to the Kalpataru Co-op. Hsg. Society.  Therefore question of giving direction to the Kalpataru Co-op. Hsg. Society to execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainant does not arise.  In the result, we pass following order:-

                                       
ORDER
1.    

Misc.

application no.2214/2008 is allowed.  Delay is condoned on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- each to be paid to the respondent nos.1 & 2.

2.     Appeal stands allowed.

3.     Impugned order under challenge is quashed and set aside.

4.     Complaint stands dismissed.

5.     Amount, if any deposited by the appellants be refunded to the appellants.

6.     Misc.

application no.2215/2008 stands disposed of.

7.     Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. 

 


 
 


 
 


                   (S.R.Khanzode)                                 
(B.B.Vagyani)
 


                   Judicial 
Member                                    President 
 


Ms.