State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Kishor Kamlakar Ghate vs M/S. Shubhamkaroti Developers on 17 June, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/07/515
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/03/2007 in Case
No. 288/2006 of District Kolhapur)
1. Mr. Kishor
Kamlakar Ghate
"Omkar
Apartment", 36-B-6, E Ward, Tarabai
Park, Kolhapur
Kolhapur
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Shubhamkaroti
Developers
Through Pro. Hemant
Prabhakar Mirgunde, Plot No. 16, Sankalp, New More Colony, Sambhaji
Nagar, Kolhapur
Kolhapur
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. S.R.
Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar MEMBER PRESENT:
Ms.Anagha Anekar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.R.R. Waigankar, Advocate for the respondent.
ORAL ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Ms.Anagha Anekar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.R.R. Waigankar, Advocate for the respondent.
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 23/03/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.288/2006, Shri Kishor Kamalakar Ghate V/s. Shubhamkaroti Developers, by District Forum, Kolhapur. The appeal is filed by original complainant since not satisfied with the reliefs granted in his favour by the District Forum.
The complainant had purchased an apartment in a building developed and constructed by the opponent/respondent known as Cinderella Castel. Possession of the apartment was received by the appellant/complainant on 27/10/2004. At that time while receiving possession, accounts were settled between the parties and the parties further decided upon incomplete work left at that time. As per said possession receipt, on the date of possession, appellant had paid `76,000/- to the respondent-builder/developer and thereafter, both parties agreed that as far as monetary part of their transaction, there were no dues to either of the parties from each other. As far the issue as to incomplete works, at that time it was agreed between the parties that those work would be completed by the appellant/complainant at his own cost and deciding the amount of `76,000/- payable to the respondent, said aspect of incomplete work has taken into consideration. Only responsibility taken by the respondent-builder/developer is about giving declaration i.e. Deed of Apartment and Execution of Deed of Apartment and installing the lift. District Forum in view of this particular settlement witnessed by the Possession Receipt, was pleased to grant the relief accordingly against respondent about execution of Deed of Apartment and also further directed the respondent to install the lift and other amenities as directed in Para 3 of the operative part of the impugned order. `5,000/- were awarded to the appellant/complainant towards mental torture and `500/- as costs.
Admittedly, respondent-builder/developer had not preferred any appeal and acquiesced with the said order. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted the compensation awarded of `5,000/- was inadequate and therefore, they pressed this appeal.
We are afraid, compensation to be awarded establishing certain facts as indicated by the Apex Court in the matter of In re Gaziabad Development Authority, (2004) 5 SCC-65. In the instant case, appellant/complainant failed to adduce any evidence establishing the circumstances which would justify more compensation than what has been awarded by the District Forum. Under the circumstances, we find that the appeal is devoid of any substance. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order :-
-:
ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 17th June 2013.
[HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar] MEMBER dd