State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms.Nirmala Yashwant Ashtekar vs Sou.Sushila Arun Shinde And Anr. on 2 January, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.1377 OF 2007 Date of filing : 26/10/2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.550 OF 2005 Date of order : 02/01/2008 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, PUNE Ms.Nirmala Yashwant Ashtekar R/o.1, Yogesh Enclave Deccan College Road, Near Sadal Baba Darga Yerwada, Pune 411 006 ..Appellant/org.complainant V/s. Sou.Sushila Arun Shinde R/o.191, Nagpur Chawl Near Jagdamba Hotel Jail Road Yerwada, Pune 411 006 Mr.Shinde Nagpur Chawl, Jail Road Yerwada, Pune 411 006 ..Respondents/org.O.P. Corum: Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Present: Appellant in person.
: ORAL ORDER:
Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is filed against the order passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.550/2005 dated 21/9/2007, whereby complaint was dismissed by the Forum below. As such original complainant filed this appeal.
We heard appellant in person extensively.
We are finding that she had paid certain amount roughly Rs.1,25,000/- to the O.Ps/respondents. Her allegation is that they are agents of MHADA and they had assured to give her flat in MHADA. There is no agreement executed between the parties to show that the respondent had agreed to provide her a flat constructed by MHADA at Pune. Only in one receipt out of 5-6, there is mention that this was the last installment for MHADA. However, primarily it is for the complainant to prove that respondents were agents of MHADA and as such agents of MHADA, they had accepted monies from her. Receipt is also just on simple paper, which does not show that she had paid amount, which was to be transmitted to MHADA their principal. In the circumstances, Ld.District Consumer Forum rightly held that this was not a consumer dispute between complainant on one hand and service provider on the other. Moreover, no documents are placed on record to show that O.Ps were acting as an agent of MHADA. Unless that is established, it cannot be said that this amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was given by appellant to the respondents for purchase of flat constructed by MHADA. Nowhere in these receipts there is mention that complainant had been assured to give a particular flat number in a particular colony being constructed by MHADA. There is no written agreement between appellant on one hand and respondent on the other to show that respondents had agreed to give a flat in MHADA colony at Pune.
In the circumstances, dispute involved was not a consumer dispute and therefore, Ld.District Consumer Forum rightly dismissed the complaint filed by appellant. We find no merit in the order passed by the Forum below dismissing complaint. The said order is sustainable in law and no interference is called for. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, there is absolutely no merit in the appeal. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
1. Appeal stands summarily rejected.
2.
Parties are left to bear their own cost.
3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
( S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member Ms.