State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Roznama vs Roznama on 7 August, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Execution Application No. EA/15/16
SALIM
R MERCHANT
Vs.
M/S.MARUTI
UDYOG LTD
BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING
MEMBER
Dated : 07 Aug 2015
ORDER
None present for the executant/complainant. None present for opponent though duly served. Since, executant/complainant himself is not present today, in the interest of justice, matter stands adjourned to 14/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Execution Application No. EA/06/18 SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA NAGJIBHAI Vs. M/S GANESH BUILDERS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Executnant/complainant No.3 present in person. Opponent/accused-Mr.Yeshwant Trivedi and Mr.Vishnu Trivedi are present in person. Both parties state that they have taken steps for executing Conveyance. However, date is to be fixed for registration of the Conveyance. They requested for time. Time is granted. Matter stands adjourned to 09/10/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Execution Application No. EA/11/5A GAURAV DHROOV CO-OP. HSG. SOC.
Vs. YASH DEVELOPMENTS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.Pradeep Patel, Secretary of executnant/complainant-Society present a/w. Advocate Mr.Ajay Pawar. Opponent/accused-Mr.Ketan Shah present a/w. Advocate Mr.Raibakkar. Advocate for the opponent/accused states that there was order from Honble High Court and as per the order, opponent/accused was to comply directions given in the order. He has already complied with the directions given by Honble High Court. However, BMC has not issued Occupancy Certificate. As BMC has not issued Occupancy Certificate, he has filed Writ Petition before the Honble High Court praying directions to the BMC for issuing of Occupancy Certificate. Advocate for the opponent/accused is directed to file copy of order wherein Honble High Court has directed the opponent/accused to comply certain directions and how he has complied the directions of the High Court. He is also directed to file copy of Writ Petition filed before the High Court. He is also directed to supply copies of the same to the executant/complainant well in advance. Matter stands adjourned to 01/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Execution Application No. EA/13/10 MANOHARLAL C. SHAH Vs. SIDDHIVINAYAK BUILDERS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Executant/complainant present a/w. Advocate Mr.Bhaskar Yogi. Opponent/accused No.2-Mr.Nitin Mehta present a/w. Advocate Mr.Mohit Bhansali. Opponent No.1 is a firm and is represented by opponent/accused No.2. Advocate Mr.Bhansali states that cross-examination cannot be recorded before the Single Member Bench and hence, suggested to record cross-examination before the Division Bench. Advocate for the executant/complainant states that he will go through the provisions. Matter stands adjourned to 28/08/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Execution Application No. EA/14/08 ANAND S JAISINGH Vs. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER None present for the executant/complainant. Mr.D.R. Mahadik, Advocate present for opponent/accused. Opponent/accused is absent. Advocate Mr.Mahadik is going to file exemption application for opponent/accused. In view of stay granted by Honble National Commission, matter stands adjourned to 04/12/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Execution Application No. EA/14/32 SACHEETA CO-OP HSG.SOC.LTD Vs. M/S.MAHESH BUILDERS & ORS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.Bhaskar Yogi, Advocate present for the executant/complainant a/w. Secretary of executant/complainant-Society. Mr.S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate present for the opponent/accused. He states that the order in execution is stayed by the Honble National Commission and parties are trying to settle the matter amicably. Matter stands adjourned to 04/12/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/14/164 PRASHANT MADAN SABLE Vs. M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.S.D. Butala, Advocate present for the complainant he states that he has deposited cost in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. He has filed an amendment application a/w. documents. Copies of the same are served to the opponent. Mr.Tushar Ingale, Advocate present for the opponent. Matter stands adjourned to 04/09/2015 for arguments on amendment application.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/14/486 RITA D BHATIA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate present for the complainant. Complainant has filed a courier receipt whereby notice was sent to opponent No.3. It is accepted by Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. Complainant is directed to take steps for serving opponent No.3. Matter stands adjourned to 28/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/14/517 MR.HARSHVARDAN NAVINLAL MEHTA Vs. SHREE.BALAJI HOUSING & ORS Complaint Case No. CC/14/518 SMT.CHARU H MEHTA Vs. SHREE.BALAJI HOUSING & ORS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 COMMON ORDER-SHEET Mr.Avinash Joshi, Advocate present for the complainant. Mr.Bhojraj, Advocate present for opponent No.2. Mr.Shilpan Gaonkar, Advocate present for opponent No.3 with authority letter. Heard both parties on the point of admission. Since, matter involves a question whether complainant is a consumer. Hence, both complaints be placed before the Division Bench on 09/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/15/125 ROSHAN SHARADA Vs. UPVAN DEVELOPERS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Heard Mr.Arun Panikar, Advocate for the complainant and Mr.Pradeep Tiwari, Advocate present for opponent No.1 on the point of admission. Complainant has made out a prima-facie case for admission. Admit. Notice after admission is waived. Advocate for opponent No.1 stated that other opponents are partners of opponent No.1. Matter stands adjourned to 07/09/2015 for filing written version.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/15/221 MR.JITENDRA B SHARMA Vs. CLASSIC DEVELOPERS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.Rajeev Tripathi, Advocate present for the complainant. Complainant to take steps for issuance of notice to the opponent by registered post acknowledgement due through this Commission at the cost of complainant. Matter stands adjourned to 28/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/15/296 SHREE SAMARTH VILLA CHS LTD Vs. SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH BUILDER BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.Bhaskar Yogi, Advocate present for the complainant. Mr.Ajay Pawar, Advocate present for opponent Nos.1to3. Mr.Vichare, Advocate present for opponent No.5. Mr.H.G. Misar, Advocate present for opponent No.6. Complainant has not complied the order dated 06/07/2015. Matter stands adjourned to 09/09/2015 for hearing on admission.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Miscellaneous Application No. MA/14/416 In Appeal No. A/14/995 SATISH CHHOTALAL TRIVEDI Vs. CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.Sagar Talekar, Advocate present for the applicant/appellant. Ms.Dipali Magare, Advocate present for non-applicant/respondent with authority letter. She files reply to the delay condonation application. She has already handed over copy of the same to the applicant/appellant.
Heard both parties on delay condonation application. Perused the delay condonation application and reply filed by the non-applicant/respondent.
There is delay of 65 days in filing appeal.
Applicant/appellant has tried to justify the delay in Para 8 of the delay condonation application. On going through the justification given for the delay, it is seen that delay is not intentional or deliberate. Honble Apex Court in various rulings has ruled that matter to be disposed of on its merit. In the interest of justice, delay of 65 days is hereby condoned subject to costs of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. On payment of cost, appeal stands adjourned to 23/09/2015 for admission hearing.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No. A/14/995 SATISH CHHOTALAL TRIVEDI Vs. CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.Sagar Talekar, Advocate present for the appellant. Ms.Dipali Magare, Advocate present for respondent with authority letter. By passing separate order in MA/14/416 delay in filing appeal is condoned subject to costs of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. On payment of cost, appeal stands adjourned to 23/09/2015 for admission hearing.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Miscellaneous Application No. MA/15/27 In Appeal No. A/15/44 ASSISTANT ENGINEER M.S.E.D.CO.LTD Vs. DNYANOBA NILU SHINDE BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Heard Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mr.Varad Deore, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent on the point of delay.
Advocate for non-applicant/respondent has relied on two judgments of the National Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Minati Das & Ors. in Revision Petition No.1263 of 2012 decided on 09/04/2014 and in the case of Meerut Development Authority thru its Secretary, Meerut (UP) V/s. Devki Nandan Sharma in Revision Petition No.3175 of 2014 decided on 25/08/2014 and argued that delay explained by the applicant/appellant is not properly justified and hence, delay condonation application may please be dismissed.
Advocate for the applicant/appellant has relied on judgments of the Apex Court in (i) Civil Appeal No.5071/2014 in case of Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. V/s. M/s.Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors. decided on 02/05/2014; (ii) Appeal Nos.10120-10121/2014 in the case of Jeevanti Devi V/s. Commercial Motors & Anr., decided on 10/11/2014 and
(iii) Civil Appeal No.3645 of 2015 in the case of Central Bank of India V/s. Jagbir Singh, 2015(STPL (Web) 324 SC. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant/respondent has stated that judgments relied by Advocate for the applicant/appellant are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Applicant/appellant has tried to justify delay in Para 3 of the delay condonation application wherein he states that the impugned order is passed on 05/05/2014. Applicant/appellant has applied for certified copy of the order which they received on 09/09/2014. From perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is seen that delay is not intentional or deliberate. The Apex Court in various matters observed that the matters to be disposed of on merit. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, delay of 126 is hereby condoned. Now, appeal is fixed for hearing on the point of admission on 28/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No. A/15/44 ASSISTANT ENGINEER M.S.E.D.CO.LTD Vs. DNYANOBA NILU SHINDE BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Heard Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Varad Deore, Advocate for respondent. By passing separate order in MA/15/27 delay in filing appeal is condoned. Appeal is fixed for hearing on the point of admission on 28/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Miscellaneous Application No. MA/15/48 In Appeal No. A/15/86 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Vs. AJAY NAVNATH SONTAKKE BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate present for the applicant/appellant. Mr.M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate present for non-applicant/respondent files Vakalatnama on record. He also files certain documents on record. Copies of the same are handed over to the applicant/appellant.
Heard both parties on the point of delay condonation application. Advocate for non-applicant/respondent has filed certain documents and an application he has filed before the District Forum in the execution application and states that applicant/appellant has taken dates in the District Forum on the ground that they have filed appeal when the appeal was not filed. He has only filed copy of application presented before the District Forum in the execution proceeding. The application filed does not show that applicant/appellant has taken adjournment on the ground that he has filed an appeal before the State Commission. In the delay condonation application, Advocate for the applicant/appellant has also stated that the impugned order is passed on 12/09/2014 and he has received certified copy on 22/09/2014. After receiving the certified copy, they have forwarded the papers to the Pune Regional Office and Pune Regional Office in turn to the Mumbai Regional Office and Mumbai Regional Office has taken decision to file appeal. In the process there is delay of 32 days in filing appeal.
On perusal of the facts of the case, it is seen that delay caused is not intentional or deliberate. As the delay is caused is not intentional or deliberate, delay of 32 days is hereby condoned. Appeal is posted for admission hearing on 28/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No. A/15/86 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Vs. AJAY NAVNATH SONTAKKE BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate present for the appellant. Mr.M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate present for respondent. By passing separate order in MA-15/48 delay in filing appeal is condoned. Respondent has filed an application for transferring this matter to Pune Circuit Bench for which appellant has taken objection. Circuit Benches are established in the month of March 2015. Since, this matter is filed before establishment of Pune Circuit Bench, matter will be decided at the Principal Bench at Mumbai in view of objection taken by the appellant. Matter stands adjourned to 28/09/2015 for hearing on admission.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Miscellaneous Application No. MA/15/75 In Appeal No. A/15/145 SHRI.VIKRANT ANIL TUREKAR Vs. SHRI.SURESH S BODALE BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Ms.Sana Mujawar, Advocate present for the applicant/appellant files authority letter issued by Advocate on record. Mr.Vinod Ghyal, Advocate present for non-applicant/respondent files Vakalatnama on record. Advocate for non-applicant/respondent states that he has received copy of delay condonation application today only. Hence, matter stands adjourned to 01/10/2015 for filing reply, if any, and for hearing on delay condonation application.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Miscellaneous Application No. MA/15/89 In Appeal No. A/15/190 KAMAL P JADHAV Vs. SHRISKUMAR R CHAVAN BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.Baliram Kamble, Advocate present for the applicant/appellant. He has not taken steps to serve non-applicant/respo9ndent as per Roznama dated 22/06/2015. He requests for time to take steps. Matter stands adjourned to 12/10/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Miscellaneous Application No. MA/15/218 In Appeal No. A/15/499 KAMALAKAR JADHAV Vs. SAI ABHISHEK CONSTRUCTIONS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.C.K. Kotwal, Advocate present for the applicant/appellant. Notice issued to non-applicant/respondent No.1 has been duly served and acknowledgement is on record. As regards service on non-applicant/respondent Nos.1a, 1b & 1c, applicant/appellant is directed to takes steps to serve them. Matter stands adjourned to 16/10/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Miscellaneous Application No. MA/15/219 In Appeal No. A/15/500 KAMALAKAR JADHAV Vs. SAI ABHISHEK CONSTRUCTIONS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.C.K. Kotwal, Advocate present for the applicant/appellant. Notice issued to non-applicant/respondent No.1 has been duly served and acknowledgement is on record. As regards service on non-applicant/respondent Nos.1a, 1b & 1c, applicant/appellant is directed to takes steps to serve them. Matter stands adjourned to 16/10/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. RBT/CC/14/110 MRS.PRABHA P KAMATH Vs. MR.SANDESH GOVIND BHATTE BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.Shashikant Sawarkar, Advocate present for the complainant. Mr.Ajay Pawar, Advocate present for opponent No.1. Mr.Milind Tembe, Advocate present for opponent No.2. He has already filed his Affidavit of evidence. Last chance was granted to opponent No.1 to file affidavit of evidence. However, opponent No.1 is not ready with affidavit of evidence. In the interest of justice, time is granted to opponent No.1 for filing affidavit of evidence subject to costs of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. Matter stands adjourned to 08/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/12/327 MRS.
SHREYA MILIND NIMONKAR Vs. DR.
SEEMA SHANBHAG BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Ms.Pooja Joshi, Advocate present for the complainant. Dr.G.N. Shenoy, A.R. present for opponent. Advocate for the complainant files four applications a/w. interrogatories to be answered by the concerned doctors. Copies thereof are handed over to A.R. of opponent. A.R. of opponent files an application seeking permission to cross-examine Dr.Milind Deshpande, who has filed his expert opinion at his costs. Copy of the same is handed over to the complainant. Similarly, copy of additional affidavit of the complainant is handed over to A.R. of the opponent. Matter stands adjourned to 09/10/2015 for arguments on the application for cross-examination filed by opponent and for answering the interrogatories.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/13/368 MEENA V. BALLAL Vs. REGIONAL REFERRAL HOSPITAL NASHIK & ORS.
BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.Hartalkar, Advocate present for the complainants a/w. complainant No.2. Mr.Abhaysinh Shinde, Advocate present for opponent Nos.1&3. Ms.Dipali Magar, Advocate present for opponent No.2. Today, matter was for filing affidavit of evidence by the opponents. However, Advocate for opponent Nos.1&3 states that he does not want to file affidavit of evidence. Without evidence on affidavit, he will argue the matter. Advocate for opponent No.2 again requests for time to file evidence on affidavit. Last chance was granted on 12/05/2015. In spite of last chance, she is not ready with evidence on affidavit. In the interest of justice, time is granted to opponent No.2 for filing affidavit of evidence subject to costs of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. Opponent No.2 is directed to serve copy of the affidavit of evidence to the complainant and other opponents well in advance. Matter stands adjourned to 30/09/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/14/203 SHRI.VIJAY P DHERE Vs. B.U.BHANDARI MOTORS PVT. LTD BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER None present for the complainant as well as for the opponent. On perusal of Roznama dated 26/02/2015, it is seen that opponent has approached Honble National Commission. Since, none is present for the parties, by way of last chance, matter stands adjourned to 09/12/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/14/307 SHRI.MANDAR JAYANT THAKUR Vs. M/S.SHIVAM PARIVAR DEVELOPERS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mrs.Yogita Bedekar, Advocate present for the complainant with authority letter. Complainant has already filed his affidavit of evidence. Opponent No.2 has already been proceeded ex-parte. Opponent No.1 has filed his reply on affidavit and submitted that it be treated as written version of opponent No.1. On last date, none present for the opponents. Since complainant has already filed evidence on affidavit, opponent No.1 is also proceeded without evidence on affidavit. Matter stands adjourned to 07/12/2015 for closing evidence by the complainant.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/14/371 MRS.SAVITA S VIBHUTI Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Ms.Sushma Gaur, Advocate present for the complainant. Mrs.Kalpana Trivedi, Advocate present for opponent No.1. Ms.S. Patra, Advocate present for opponent No.2. Today, Advocate for complainant files an application for amendment in the complaint. Copy of the same is handed over to the other side. Advocate for opponent No.2 states that amendment application is not accompanied by affidavit of complainant and hence, amendment application cannot be considered. Matter stands adjourned for filing reply by the opponents. Opponents are directed to serve copy of reply on the other side well in advance at least fifteen days. Both opponents also seek time to file written version. Time is granted. Matter stands adjourned to 21/08/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/15/124 DHIREN D SAVALA Vs. M/S.MANN HOUSING DEVELOPERS BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Mr.R.R. Thumbre, Advocate present for the complainant. Mr.Abhijit Singh, Advocate present for opponent Nos.1to3. Notice sent to opponent No.4 returned back with endorsement Intimation posted. However, it is not a proper service. Opponent Nos.1to3 are not ready with written version and requested for time. Time is granted. Complainant is directed to take necessary steps to serve opponent No.4. Matter stands adjourned to 01/09/2015 for filing written version by the opponents.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/15/193 VANDANA PISHARODY Vs. LUCINA LAND DEV.LTD BEFORE:
Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Aug 2015 ORDER Ms.Sukruta Chimalkar, Advocate present for the complainant a/w. complainant. Mr.Vinay Menon, Advocate present a/w. Ms.Kirti Shetty, Advocate for the opponent. Opponent has filed written version as well as reply to Interim Relief Application on record. Copies of the same are handed over to the complainant. Advocate Ms.Chimalkar states that in the Interim Relief Application her prayer is only not to create third party interest in the flat No.18E-1402 booked by the complainant. Since, the interim prayer is for not to create third party interest in the flat booked by the complainant, opponent is directed not to create any third party interest in the flat No.18E-1402 booked by the complainant. With this Interim Relief Application stands disposed of.
Both the parties are now directed to file affidavit evidence as per provisions of Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Parties are further directed to prepare their affidavits well in advance and serve copies thereof on the other side. On receipt of such affidavit from the other side, the parties are at a liberty to file their counter-affidavits, if any. Such counter-affidavits shall also be prepared well in advance and copies thereof shall be exchanged with the other side at least a fortnight prior to the next date of hearing. Affidavits and counter-affidavits and relevant documents shall be presented before the State Commission on 10/12/2015.
[ Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER dd