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 1, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Bhirad Brothers Real Estate Developers vs Sau. Rekha Nandkishor Goenka on 11 April, 2011

  
 
 
 
 
 
 Daily Order






  
            	



 



 
   
   
   


   
     
     
     

STATE CONSUMER
    DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
    
   
    
     
     

CIRCUIT BENCH
    AT NAGPUR
    
   
    
     
     

5 TH FLOOR,
    ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
    
   
    
     
     

CIVIL LINES,
    NAGPUR-440 001
    
   
  
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     
       
       
       

Revision
      Petition No. RP/09/53
      
     
      
       
       

(Arisen out
      of Order Dated 13/07/2009 in Case No. 316/08 of District )
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     
       
       
       
         
         
         

1.

BHIRAD BROTHERS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,PARTNER SHRI. RATAN PANDURANGJI BHIRAD MATOSHRI, JOGLEKAR PLOT, DABKI ROAD, AKOLA.

...........Appellant(s) Versus

1. SAU. REKHA NANDKISHOR GOENKA GOENKA NAGAR, AKOLA. TQ.7 DISTT. AKOLA.

...........Respondent(s)   BEFORE:

   
HON'BLE P.N.KASHALKAR PRESIDING MEMBER   HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER   PRESENT:
 
ORDER Both the parties as well as their counsels absent. Adv.Kane was appearing for Revision Petitioner and Adv.Jain used to appear for the Respondent. Today, both of them are absent.
We have perused the impugned order challenged in this Revision Petition passed in CC No.316/2008 by District Forum,Akola. An objection is taken by Original Opposite Party by filing an objection petition dated 1/4/2009 before the Forum challenging the maintainability of the complaint. On this Objection petition, the Forum passed a detailed order running into eight pages and held that complainant had kept certain amount in the deposit with the Opposite Party and since the deposit is not refunded by the Opposite party, the complainant is a consumer and unpaid deposit's case comes within the definition of "consumer" as defined Under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The Forum, therefore, turned down the objection filed by the Opposite Party and hence the Opposite Party filed this Revision Petition against the said order of the Forum.
On perusal of the impugned order, we are finding that dismissal of the objection petition filed by the original Opposite Party is just and proper. It is sustainable in law. There is no merit in the Revision Petition filed by the Revision Petitioner. We therefore, dismiss the Revision Petition.
Inform the parties accordingly.
   
Delivered on 11/04/2011.
     
[ HON'BLE P.N.KASHALKAR] PRESIDING MEMBER   [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER