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

M/S Ninad Constructions, Adv. Shri ... vs Adv. Shri Sanjay M. Chodankar,M/S Ninad ... on 5 May, 2009

  
 
 
 
 
 
 THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  
 
 







 



 

THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION 

 

PANAJI-GOA 

 

  

 

Present: 

 

 Smt.
Sandra Vaz e CorreiaPresiding
Member 

 

 Smt. Caroline Collasso, Member  

 

   

 

 Exeuction 
Application No. 18/2005 

 

   

 

M/s Ninad Constructions, represented by 

 

Its Proprietor
Shri Nitin Chodankar, 

 

Son
of Pandurang Chodankar, 

 

Presently
resident of H.No.4, 

 

Sai Vihar Co-operative Housing Society, 

 

Karve
Hill, Near New   Chowgule  College, 

 

Gogol, Margao,.  Goa.  Decree Holder 

 

  

 

 v/s 

 

  

 

Adv.
Shri Sanjay M. Chodankar, 

 

Son
of Motiram V. Chodankar, 

 

Major,
bachelor, Lawyer by Profession, 

 

r/o H.
No. 427, Batty waddo, Tamdeg, 

 

Carmona, Salcete Goa 403 717.  Judgment Debtor 

 

  

 

For the Decree HolderShri Ramnathkar, Advocate and
Decree Holder present in person at the time of order 

 

Judgment Debtor present in
person and Adv V. Lotlikar present at the time of
order

 

  

 

  Execution Application
No. 4/2008 

 

  

 

Adv.
Shri Sanjay M. Chodankar, 

 

Son
of Motiram V. Chodankar, 

 

Major,
bachelor, lawyer by Profession, 

 

r/o H.
No. 427, Batty waddo, Tamdeg, 

 

Carmona, Salcete Goa 403 717 

 

  

 

 v/s 

 

  

 

M/s Ninad Constructions, represented by 

 

Its
Proprietor Shri Nitin Chodankar, 

 

Son of Pandurang
Chodankar, 

 

Presently
resident of H.No.381, Chawl Near 

 

Mahalaxmi
Apartment, Ward No.10, 

 

Next
to Dr. Kudchadkar Dispensary, 

 

Comba,
Margao, Salcate Goa. Decree Holder  

 

  

 

Decree Holder present in person and  

 

Advocate V.Lotlikar
present at the time of order. 

 

For the Judgment Debtor.. Shri Ramnathkar
Advocate and Judgment Debtor present in person at the time of order. 

 

  

 

  

 

 Miscellaneous Application No.1/2009 

 

   

 

M/s Ninad Constructions,  

 

C/o Shri
Nitin Chodankar, 

 

Proprietor, 

 

r/o
H.No.381, 

 

Near
Mahalaxmi Apartments, 

 

Ward
No.10, 

 

Comba, Margao,  Goa.  Decree Holder 

 

  

 

 v/s 

 

  

 

Advocate
Sanjay M. Chodankar, 

 

2nd
Floor,   Damodar
  Building, 

 

Near
Vidya Niketan, 

 

Behind
Central Bank, 

 

Margao Goa.
Judgment Debtor 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

For
the Decree HolderShri Ramnathkar,
Advocate and Decree Holder present in person at the time of order 

 

Judgment
Debtor present in person and 

 

Adv
V. Lotlikar present at the time of order. 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

Dated: 05-05-2009 

 

  

 

ORDER 
 

[Per Smt Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member]  

1. The common thread in all three matters is that they seek compliance/execution of this Commissions order dated 11-08-2003 in Complaint no. 33/2001 modified by the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by order dated 29-09-2008 in First Appeal no. 660 of 2006; hence their disposal by a common order.

 

2. In the aforesaid order, the Honble National Commission disposed the appeal with a direction to the opposite party M/s Ninad Constructions to refund the amount of Rs.3,79,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint subject to the Complainant Shri Sanjay Chodankar furnishing of NOC from the two housing finance agencies; the complainant also undertook to return the two original agreements to the opposite party. Incase the payment was not made within two months, from the date of the order the respondent would be liable to pay interest at the said rate on the amount of Rs.3,79,000/- after two months till realization of the amount.

 

3. The first of the executions (Execution Application No. 18/2005) is filed by the opposite party seeking compliance of this Commissions order dated 11-08-2003 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,69,550/-. This execution however is rendered infructuous in view of the order of the Honble National Commission in appeal where the parties agreed to a settlement. Hence, Execution Application no. 18/2005 stands dismissed.

 

4. In Execution Application No. 4/2008, filed pursuant to the order of the Honble National Commission, the complainant seeks detention of the opposite party for failure to comply with the directions of the Honble National Commission. According to him, an amount of Rs.7,14,965/- plus costs of Rs.5,000/- is due as on 15-12-2008 and that the opposite party had allegedly committed contempt of the orders by not complying with the same. In Miscellaneous Application no.1/2009, the opposite party seeks detention of the complainant for allegedly failing to comply with his part of the deal agreed before the Honble National Commission i.e. furnishing of NOCs of the two housing Finance Agencies and return of the two original agreements.

 

5. The operative part of the order dated 29-09-2008 of the Honble National Commission in F.A. No. 660 of 2006 reads as follows:

 
In view of the said statements, the appeal is disposed of with direction to the respondent to refund amount of Rs.3,79,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till today subject to furnishing of No Objection Certificates from the said two agencies by the appellant. Appellant undertakes to return two original agreements to the respondent. In case the payment is not made within 2 months from today, the respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the said rate on the amount of Rs.3,79,000/- after two months till realization of the amount  

6. A controversy arose in the interpretation of the said order as to whether the complainant was liable to hand over the NOCs and original agreements to the opposite parties before refund of the amount with interest. As a via media, this Commission directed the complainant to deposit the said documents in the registry (which was done on 20-03-2009), while directing the opposite party to deposit the amount payable by him in the registry. An amount of Rs.6,14,927/- came to be deposited on 20-04-2009.

 

7. The next controversy that arose was regarding the total amount payable by the opposite party to the complainant in compliance with the appellate forums order. According to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,19,965/- was due; on the other hand, the opposite party claimed the amount to be Rs.6,14,927/-. Parties submitted their respective calculations.

 

8. We perused the calculation statements submitted by the parties. In our opinion, the calculation ought to be as follows:

Interest payable at Rs.3,79,000/- @ 9% w.e.f. 29-10-2001   29-10-01 31-10-01 Rs. 275.00 01-11-01 31-03-02 Rs. 14,213.00 01-04-02 31-03-03 Rs. 34.110.00 01-04-03 31-03-04 Rs. 34,110.00 01-04-04 31-03-05 Rs. 34,110.00 01-04-05 31-03-06 Rs. 34,110.00 01-04-06 31-03-07 Rs. 34,110.00 01-04-07 31-03-08 Rs. 34,110.00 01-04-08 28-02-09 Rs. 31,268.00 01-03-09 19-03-09 Rs . 1,742.00 Total Rs.2,52,158.00

9. In view of the above, the opposite party is directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.16,231/- in the Registry of this Commission within a week; upon compliance of the foregoing, the Registrar shall release to the opposite party the said documents submitted by the complainant. Likewise, the deposited amounts shall be released to the complainant alongwith interest accrued thereon if any. The five receipts issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant are hereby declared cancelled upon deposit of the balance amount as above.

10. Execution Application no. 18//2005, Execution Application no. 4/2008 and Miscellaneous Application no. 1/2009 stand disposed accordingly. No order as to costs.

 

Pronounced.

[Sandra Vaz e Correia] Member     [Caroline Collasso]