State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri vs State Of Maharashtra (Mhada) on 8 March, 2016
CC/01/103 1/4
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/01/103
Mr.Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri
Since deceased represented through legal
heir - Smt.Tarulata Iswar Kalpatri
Wife of the deceased complainant
r/at : Kukreja Complex, Building No.7A,
1201, 12th floor, LBS Marg, Bhandup West,
Mumbai 400 078. ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MHADA,
Bombay Housing & Area Development Board
Kala Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 050.
2. The Chief Officer (W),
Bombay Housing & Area Development Board
Kala Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 050.
3. Mr.M.D.Pawar, Dy.Chief Officer (W)
B.H.& A.D.Board, Bombay Housing & Area
Development Board
Kala Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 050.
4. Estate Mangar (W)
World Bank Project
Bombay Housing & Area Development Board
Kala Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 050. ............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
P.B.Joshi, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Narendra Kawde, MEMBER
For the
Complainant: Adv.Rashmi Manne
For the Opp. Party: Adv.Mrinalini Warunjikar for the opponents.
Adv.Kiran Patil for intervener.
ORDER
Per Mr.P.B.Joshi, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member [1] Heard Adv.Rashmi Manne for the complainant, Adv.Mrinalini Warunjikar for the opponent and Adv.Kiran for the intervener.
[2] Complainant has purchased a plot from the opponent by paying an CC/01/103 2/4 amount of Rs.2,36,656/- and possession was also handed over on16/01/1996. Documents were executed in favour of the complainant. When complainant approached Greater Bombay Municipal Corporation for obtaining permission for construction on the plot, it was informed vide letter dated 17/09/1998 that permission for construction cannot be granted in view of order dated 09/03/1995 in Civil Case No.664/1993 and letter dated 23/03/1995 issued by Environment Department, Govt. of India since said plat falls within the distance of 500 meters from sea shore and therefore development on such plots are stayed. It is because of that present complaint has been filed contending that complainant suffered mental agony as it was not informed to the complainant by the opponent while selling the said plot that the said plot falls under Costal Regulation Zone [CRZ] otherwise the complainant would not have purchased the plot. The complainant has prayed to direct the opponent to complete the obligation and pay compensation of Rs.2 lacs per year with incidental losses and interest thereof to the tune of total of Rs.19,19,043/-.
[3] The opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version. Opponent has not disputed that the plot was sold to the complainant. Amount was received, documents were executed and possession was handed over. However, the opponent has raised point of limitation as possession was handed over on 16/01/1996 and the complaint was filed in the year 2001 and hence the complaint was not filed within two years from the date of possession. Even from the date of letter dated 17/09/1998 when it was informed to the complainant that the plot comes under CRZ. It was also contended that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction. It was also contended that during the pendency of the complaint, third party interest has been created.
[4] In view of the rival contentions of the parties, following points arise for our consideration and our findings on them are noted as below:-
Points Findings
1. Whether this Commission has pecuniary Yes
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
CC/01/103 3/4
2. Whether the complaint is within limitation? No
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to No
compensation as claimed ?
4. Whether there is deficiency in service on the No
part of the opponent?
5. What order? As per
final order.
POINT NO.1 :-
[5] Complaint has claimed Rs.19,19,043/-. The complaint was filed in year 2001. At that time, pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission was upto Rs.20 Lakhs. Hence, the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.
POINT NO.2 :-
[6] As per complainant he has came to know in 1998 that plot in dispute is under CRZ. Because of that complainant suffered mental agony. Hence, complaint was filed for compensation in 2001 which is beyond two years from the date of cause of action which is the date when complainant came to know that plot is under CRZ. Thus, complaint is not within limitation. Hence, we answer Point No.2 in negative.
POINT NO.3 :-
[7] As mentioned above, selling of the plot and possession was given on 16/01/1996 are admitted facts. It is the contention of the complainant that though the plot was coming under CRZ, it was not informed to the complainant that it was affected by CRZ and because of that clause, development of such plots were stayed. Therefore, the complainant suffered mental agony. Further, it is material to note that the complainant has not brought on record anything to show that the opponent was knowing, at the time of sale of the plot, that the plot was coming under CRZ. Learned advocate for the complainant has drawn our attention to the letter dated 17/09/1997 of the opponent wherein a reference of decision in Civil Case No.664/1993 is made. So also, there CC/01/103 4/4 is a reference of Circular of the Department of Environment, Govt. of India is made. From that letter, it cannot be accepted that the opponent was knowing, on the date of transaction, the plot was under CRZ. Unless it is shown that the opponent was knowing that the plot was coming under CRZ and opponent has not disclosed the said information. Contention of the complainant that the opponent is responsible for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. Said contention of the complainant cannot be accepted because complainant has not brought on record that opponent was knowing at the time of transaction with the complainant that the plot was under CRZ. Hence, the contention of the complainant that the opponent is responsible for the agony caused to the complainant cannot be accepted. We find nothing on record to accept the contention of the complainant that there is deficiency in service in not disclosing that the plot is coming under CRZ. Hence, we answer the Point No.3 in negative.
Point Nos.4&5 :-
[6] In view of the discussion of the point nos.2&3, complainant is not entitled to any compensation. Consumer complaint deserved to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Hence, we answer the Point Nos.4 and 5 accordingly.
ORDER (1) Consumer complaint stands dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
Pronounced Dated 8th March, 2016.
[P.B.Joshi] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER [Narendra Kawde] MEMBER pg