State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Hermione Mary Salazar vs Mr. Anthony H. Silva on 19 November, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/00/480
1. MRS. HERMIONE MARY
SALAZAR
1, FATIMA
MANOR, 47-B, MONICAS RD,
BANDRA(W), MUMBAI-50.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MR. ANTHONY H.
SILVA
THE NICE, PLOT NO.45,
ST.FRANCIS AVENUE
ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI-54.
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MRS. Usha
S.Thakare PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. Narendra
Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT:
Mr.S.B. Prabhawalkar,
Advocate a/w. Mr.Ashutosh Marathe, Advocate for the complainant.
Ms.Sarika Mehra,
Advocate Proxy for Mr.T.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the opponent.
ORDER
Per Mrs.Usha S. Thakare, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Mrs.Hermione Mary Salazar has filed present complaint for claiming possession of ownership flat of her choice of aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. from the opponent. She has alleged that there is deficiency in service against the opponent.
2. Facts giving rise to present complaint in short are as under :-
The complainant, her brother-Mr.Valerian Jude Fernandes, sister-Mrs.Gemma Bernadette DPenha, brother-Mr.Gringnion Lawrence Fernandes and Rev.Fr.Anadete Andrew Fernandes were absolute owners of property i.e. agricultural land bearing Survey No.45, Hissa No.16, CTS No.507, Survey No.46, Hissa No.1, CTS No.508, Survey No.56 Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.510, Survey No.46, Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.512, Survey No.46, Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.513 and Surveyr No.46 Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.514 admeasuring in aggregate 4972.9 sq.mtrs. and the structure standing thereon, situated at Village Kondivita, Tal. Andheri (East), Dist. Mumbai Suburban. The complainant, her brothers and sisters i.e. owners of the land intended to develop said property by demolishing the existing structure standing thereon and to construct new building.
They were not in a position to carry out said development of the land. Opponent is a builder/developer by profession. He approached the owners with proposal to develop said land.
He agreed to takeover said land and to develop the same by taking over responsibility of settling with the cultivator and the persons in occupation of the structure on said land at his own cost and expenses after obtaining necessary permissions and sanctions of the concerned authorities. He offered his services for consideration of a large number of flats after development which were agreed to be at his disposal for sale to outsiders. Sale proceeds thereof to be appropriated by him as his charges by way of consideration.
3. On 07/11/1987 the complainant and co-owners of said property as well as opponent entered into a written agreement for development of said property on certain terms and conditions. From the date of agreement, owners i.e. complainant, her brothers and sisters became the consumers and the opponent became the developer. As per terms and conditions, the owners allowed the developer i.e. opponent to develop said land, to sell the flats and premises to various persons and appropriate sale proceeds thereof to himself as consideration. It was agreed that the developer shall allot and provide the owners of the property, flats of aggregate area of 8500 sq.ft. on the ownership basis. The opponent had agreed to enter into a separate agreement with each of the five owners, agreeing to allow and provide to each one of them two or three flats of aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. as a built-up area with all modern amenities free of costs on ownership basis. It was agreed that the construction shall be A grade construction. It was further agreed that the flats allotted or provided by the developer i.e. opponent to the owners do not cover up the entire area agreed to be allotted or provided by the developer to the owners, then the developer shall immediately pay to the owners cost of price of such deficit area at the prevailing market rate. It was also agreed that the developer will develop said land by constructing buildings thereon only for residential purpose. If the builder succeeds in getting any area of FSI sanctioned for commercial purpose, the developer shall allot and provide the owners half of such commercial area of FSI free of cost on ownership basis and shall enter into a separate agreement with the owners. As per terms of agreement as soon as the building plans are sanctioned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, the developer i.e. opponent shall inform in writing to the owners about the same. The owners shall entitle to first choose the flats of their own choice as soon as the building plans are sanctioned by Brihnamumbai Municipal Corporation and the developer shall enter into an agreement for sale of premises to any other persons out of salable FSI or area unless and until he has allotted in writing to the owners the flats chosen by them. The developer shall not be entitled to do any work in the development of work on this land unless he paid stamp duty or registration charges, if any payable by him. After the developer has allotted in writing to the owners the flats chosen by them and executed the agreement, the developer shall be entitled to sell remaining shops and flats in the said proposed new buildings on the said land on ownership basis and to enter into an agreement with the prospective buyers of such flats and shops and garages. The developer however shall not entitle to put any such persons in possession of any flat or shop or garage unless and until developer shall put the owners in possession of all the flats and/or shops allotted or to be given to them in consideration of the owners. The developer shall give possession of flats and shops to the owners which have been agreed to be allotted or provided to them after completing the work of construction in all respects within period of three years from the date of the agreement between the parties. In the event of developer failing or neglecting to give possession of the flats to the owners within said period of three years, the owners shall be entitled to cancel the agreement and to pay to the developer cost of the work of construction put up by him on the said land. Said cost should be decided by an Architect chosen by both the parties by mutual consent. Upon payment of such costs by the owners, the developer shall vacate the project and remove his men and material and put the owners in possession of said land.
The owners shall be at liberty to deal with or dispose of the said project in any manner as they like or the owners shall recover and receive a sum of `1 Lakh per month till the developer complete the construction and give possession of the flats and shops completed in all respects. On completion of building construction, the developer shall give notice of thirty days in writing to the owners to keep the flats and shops allotted to them in new buildings. The owners shall make arrangement to take possession of said flats and shops on receipt of said notice.
4. It is alleged by the complainant that opponent completed the development but refused to put the complainant in possession of the flat to which she is entitled as per terms and conditions of the agreement. He committed various breaches of terms and conditions of said agreement. Opponent agreed to provide to the complainant 1700 sq.ft. built-up area on ownership basis. Said agreement was entered into on 07/11/1987. Till this date, the opponent never offered the promised flats to the complainant. The opponent has not offered to the complainant in writing the promised flats or shops. The opponent was duty bound to inform in writing to the complainant as soon as building plans were sanctioned by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.
The complainant had right fist to choose her flats as soon as the building plans were sanctioned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. Opponent did not inform the complainant about sanctioning of plans by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. Opponent has constructed five buildings consisting about 80 flats. Most of the flats have been sold by the opponent to the outsiders without informing the complainant or without offering any flats to her in writing.
Opponent committed breach of condition and stipulation of agreement. He has put every outsider purchasers in possession of their respective flats, but not the complainant. Even after about ten years from the execution of agreement, opponent did not give possession of chosen flats to the complainant.
Opponent had agreed to pay five owners including complainant, `1 Lakh per month as liquidated damages in case opponent failed and neglected to put in possession all the owners in possession of their respective chosen flats.
5. It is further alleged that opponent has designed to force the complainant to accept two flats in building E bearing Nos.101 and 102 with garage and another in building C bearing No.304 having aggregate area of 1368 sq.ft. built-up as against built up area of 1700 sq.ft. as promised. On 16/11/1998 the opponent has put the fourth owner in possession of her flats under the agreement leaving the complainant in lurch. The opponent wants to deprive the complainant of her entitlement under the agreement by sparing even an inch of her land by disposing of the flats. Therefore, the complainant has filed present complaint and claimed possession of ownership of flats having aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. built up with other reliefs.
6. The opponent has filed written version on 22/02/2001 and denied the claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant is not entitled to reliefs as prayed for. According to him the complaint is filed on the basis of development agreement entered into between the complainant and opponent which is purely a commercial transaction. Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the complaint. The complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer and the only remedy available to her is to file a civil suit. He further submits that pursuant to the agreement, various difficulties faced by him for removing the kul on the property belonging to the complainant. He completed the construction in or about 1994. He immediately called upon all the flat owners to take possession of their respective flats. Out of five owners including complainant, Mr.Velerian Jude Fernandes and Mr.Griginion Lawrence Fernandes were provided flats admeasuring 950 sq.ft. built-up area each in Bandra (West) in lieu of their 1700 sq.ft. built-up area to be provided under the agreement dated 07/11/1987. He had repurchased all the flats of Rev. Fr.Anaclete Andrew Fernandes for consideration. Two flats from building known as SilverGarden constructed on the property were provided to co-owner Mrs.Gemma Bernadetta DPenha and consideration was paid for the balance area. Accordingly claims of co-owners in the agreement were duly settled. The complainant was also called upon to take possession of her flat in or about 1995. However, since she was residing at tenanted premises, she informed, if she had taken possession of the flat, her landlord may file a suit against her and she would have to quit her present residence at 1, Fatima Manor, 41-B, St.Monicas Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai.400 050. Under these circumstances, she was reluctant to take possession of her flat offered to her and now making certain false claims.
She was repeatedly called upon to take possession of flat. However, she refused to take possession. As a developer, opponent had no alternative but to pay outgoing in respect of her flat since 1995. Total outgoing in respect of three flats allotted to complainant is `2,52,000/-. Under these circumstances, he had no alternative, but to dispose of the flats.
The amount claimed by the complainant shows that it is a purely commercial transaction. Hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the complaint. Complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. On filing written version, complainant-Mrs.Hermione Mary Salazar has filed rejoinder to the written version of the opponent on affidavit.
She has denied all adverse allegations against her. She has denied that she was called for taking possession of the flat in or about 1995 and she denied to take possession as she was staying in tenanted premises. It is submitted that the premises at 1 Fatima Manor, 41-B, St.Monicas Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 was tenanted to her husband in the year 1970 and till today he is tenant of said premises. Her marriage took place in the year 1979. Flats under agreement were to be given to her as owner in her own name in view of the fact that she inherited the property in the agreement from her uncle. Hence, there was absolutely no threat of loosing the tenanted premises to which she is entitled as owner under the suit agreement. According to the terms of the agreement and as per the law, all the expenses till date of conveyance and handing over possession of the flats were to be borne by the opponent. The transaction is not for commercial purpose. She has denied that she did not bother to take possession. She has further submitted that offered flats are still not disposed off. The opponent did not give details of the alleged disposal of the flats.
Therefore, on 16/03/2000 she issued a notice to the opponent through her lawyer to give details of disposal of the flats. The opponent through his lawyer informed that his client is out of station and will not be in a position to give inspection within seven days. She reiterated that she is entitled for reliefs as claimed by her in the complaint.
8. The complainant has again filed supplementary rejoinder on 11/04/2001.
Again she has denied that the flats were disposed of by the opponent. She claims that flats are still vacant. The opponent did not given details of alleged disposal of flats and hence, on 16/02/2001 her lawyer gave notice to give details of the same. The opponent through his lawyer informed that he is out of station and would not be in a position to give inspection within seven days. After rejoinder, on 23/03/2001 the opponent gave copies of two allotment documents. First document is dated 01/04/1999 in respect of flat No.304 of admeasuring 550 sq.ft. built-up in favour of Mr.Ramesh Hemnani. Second allotment document is dated 03/05/2000 in favour of Mr.Ramesh Mathrani in respect of flat Nos.101 & 102 admeasuring 550 sq.ft. in C wing. Both documents are bogus and colourless. They were prepared after filing of the complaint just to defeat the claim of the complainant. The complaint was filed on 15/11/2000. The opponent was served with the complaint and application for interim relief for injunction and appointment of receiver. The opponent appeared on 19/01/2001 through his lawyer, but did not even whisper that concerned flats were disposed off, much less through any document. The alleged allotment documents are not agreement to sell much less Sale Deeds.
Such documents cannot be used for transfer of interest. The complainant has submitted that this Commission may not take into consideration said allotment documents and pleased to hold that flats are still vacant.
9. The complainant-Mrs.Hermione Mary Salazar led her evidence by filing affidavit on 28/09/2012. She has placed reliance on agreement between parties dated 07/11/1987.
The opponent-Mr.Anthony H. Silva led his evidence by filing affidavit on 28/09/2012. He has filed on record copy of agreement dated 03/05/1991 and copy of agreement dated 19/05/1999 in support of his version.
The complainant has filed additional affidavit on 15/03/2013.
10. We have heard Learned Counsel Mr.S.B. Prabhawalkar a/w. Learned Counsel Mr.Ashutosh Marathe for the complainant and Learned Counsel Ms.Sarika Mehra Proxy for Learned Counsel Mr.T.S. Patwardhan for the opponent. Brief notes of arguments filed by the opponent are taken into consideration.
11. The property i.e. agricultural land bearing Survey No. No.45, Hissa No.16, CTS No.507, Survey No.46, Hissa No.1, CTS No.508, Survey No.56 Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.510, Survey No.46, Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.512, Survey No.46, Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.513 and Surveyr No.46 Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.514 admeasuring in aggregate 4972.9 sq.mtrs. and the structure standing thereon, situated at Village Kondivita, Tal. Andheri (East), Dist. Mumbai Suburban, were originally owned by the complainant, her brothers and sisters.
Opponent is a builder/developer by profession. The property owned by the complainant, her brothers and sisters was given for development to the opponent. At that time, deed of agreement was executed. Terms and conditions were settled between the parties. Said agreement was executed on 07/11/1987 between complainant, her brothers - sisters and the opponent. Said agreement is not at all disputed.
12. The complainant and other co-owners intended to develop their land by demolishing existing structure standing thereon. The owners were not in a position to carry out development of said land due to their financial position. Therefore, they entered into an agreement with the opponent/developer. The developer agreed to take over the land to develop the same. The agreement shows that the opponent/developer had taken over the responsibility of settling with the cultivators and the persons in occupation of said structure at his own costs and expenses.
The owners have agreed to entrust said land to the opponent for development with certain terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions are incorporated in the agreement. It was the sole responsibility of the developer to obtain on behalf of owners the necessary permissions from the Competent Authorities to develop the land. The developer was duty bound to make constructions as per the terms granted by the Competent Authority. The developer had to develop the land at his own costs.
13. The opponent/developer had accepted the title of the land owners. The opponent was well aware that one Peter Anthony Rodrigues was the owner of said land. He died at Mumbai. During his lifetime, he had executed will deed. He bequeathed the land covered under the agreement to the complainant and other co-owners.
14. It was agreed between the parties that the developer will develop said land by constructing buildings thereupon only for residential purpose. In consideration all the owners allowed the opponent/developer to develop said land and to sell the flats and appropriate the sale proceeds thereof as a consideration. It was agreed that the developer should allot and provide to the owners flats of aggregate area of 8500 sq.ft. (built-up). As per Clause 12 of the agreement, as soon as building plans are sanctioned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, developer/opponent shall inform in writing to the owners about the same.
The owners shall be entitled to first choose flats of their own choice in all respects as soon as the building plans are sanctioned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and the developer shall not enter into an agreement for sale of flat or premises to any other person out of the saleable F.S.I. or area unless and until he has allotted in writing to the owners the flats chosen by them. As per Clause 13 of the agreement, after the developer has allotted in writing to the owners the flats chosen by them and executed agreement, the developer shall be entitled to sell remaining flats/shops and garages in the said proposed new building or buildings on the said land on ownership basis and to enter into an agreement with the prospective buyers. Clause 14 of the agreement speaks that developer shall give possession of all the flats and shops to the owners which have been agreed to be allotted or provided to them. In the event of failure of developer to give possession of the said flats to the owners within said period of three years, the owners shall be entitled to cancel the agreement or to recover or to receive from the developer a sum of `1 Lakh per month till the developer complete the construction and gives possession of all the flats and/or shops to owners completed in all respects as per the agreement. The developer/opponent agreed to pay to the owners as and by way of liquidation and damages, if the developer fails and neglects to give possession of the flats and shops to the owners within a period of three years. These terms and conditions are incorporated in the agreement dated 07/11/1987.
15. Now, we have to see whether the opponent/developer had followed the terms and conditions of the agreement or not? Admittedly, the agreement was executed by five owners and the present opponent. The opponent had given flats as per agreement to four co-owners. The crucial question as to whether at any time he offered flat or flats having aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. as per agreement to the complainant? The opponent in his affidavit submits that the complainant was called upon to take possession of her flats in or about 1995. The agreement was executed on 07/11/1987. The opponent did not complete the construction of building within three years. Nothing is on record to show that the opponent offered the complainant in writing to take possession of flats having area of 1700 sq.ft. Not a single documents in on record to show that offer was made by opponent to the complainant to take possession of flat or flats having aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. He did not inform in writing to the complainant after sanction of building plans by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.
The complainant being owner was entitled to first choose the flats of her own choice in all respects as soon as the building plan was sanctioned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.
16. As per the submission of the opponent/developer, possession of flats was given to other flat owners and buyers in the year 1995. In fact the opponent should not have entered into an agreement for sale of flat or premises to any other person unless and until he has allotted in writing to the owners including the complainant, the flats chosen by them. Only after allotment of flats in writing to the owners including complainant he was entitled to execute agreement with other buyers on ownership basis.
Evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the developer allotted flat Nos.101 & 102 on first floor each admeasuring approximately 550 sq.ft. of E wing and flat No. 304 on third floor admeasuring 550 sq.ft. of C wing in project known as SilverGardens to the complainant. For the sake of arguments, if it is considered that the opponent made offer to the complainant to take possession of these flats, still the area of those flats do not tally with the agreement.
As per the agreement, the complainant was entitled for aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. The aggregate area of three flats is certainly less than agreed area of 1700 sq.ft. The opponent never agreed to pay consideration of balance amount or lesser area to the complainant.
17. The argument advanced on behalf of opponent that flat/flats offered to the complainant in the year 1995, but she refused to take possession of the flats on the ground that she was in tenanted premises cannot be accepted.
The complainant is claiming flat or flats having area of 1700 sq.ft. on ownership basis as her land was given for development. She got land which is developed by the opponent from her parental side. The complainant in her affidavit made it clear that her husband had taken on rent premises at 1 Fatima Manor, 41-B St. Monicas Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 in 1970. Marriage of the complainant was performed in the year 1979.
The complainant inherited the property covered under the agreement from her Uncle and this fact is clear from the agreement between the parties. So there is no question of refusal at the insistence of the complainant from taking possession of the flats allotted to her.
18. It is urged on behalf of the builder/opponent that as the complainant failed to take possession of the flats allotted to her, the builder/opponent was required to pay heavy outgoing of the flats since 1995.
Therefore, he has no alternative, but to dispose of the flats and now, flats are not available with him to give to the complainant.
19. The complainant did not get possession of the flats as per agreement till today although her land was given for development to the opponent. In view of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, it is the responsibility of the builder/opponent to pay the outgoing of the flats till property is transferred. Section 6 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 runs as under :-
6.
Responsibility for payment of outgoings till property is transferred. - A promoter shall while he is in possession, and where he collect from persons who have taken over flats or are to take over flats sums for the payment of outgoings even thereafter, pay all outgoings (including ground rent, municipal or other local taxes, taxes on income, water charges, electricity charges, revenue assessment, interest on any mortgage or other encumbrances, if any) until he transfers the property to the persons taking over the flats, or to the organization of any such persons. Where any promoter fails to pay, all or any of the outgoings collected by him from the persons who have taken over the flats or are to take over flats, before transferring the property to the persons taking over the flats or to the organization of any such persons, the promoter shall continue to be liable, even after the transfer of the property, to pay such outgoings and penal charges (if any) to the authority or person to whom they are payable and to be responsible for any legal proceedings which may be taken therefore by such authority or person.
20. The complainant has denied that the flats are disposed of by the opponent.
It is pertinent to note here that the opponent has filed his first written version on 22/02/2001. In said written version he made a usual submission that he has disposed of the flats. He did not take pain to give details of disposal. It is not made clear to whom he had sold those three flats? When they were sold? What was the amount of consideration? Whether registered agreements were executed or Whether Sale Deed was executed to transfer the property in favour of the buyers?
21. After seeing the written version, diligent complainant issued a notice to the opponent/developer on 16/02/2001 and asked the developer to give details of the disposal. Lawyer of the opponent/developer by reply notice dated 21/03/2001 informed that his client is out of station and would not be in a position to give inspection within seven days. The complainant has filed rejoinder. After rejoinder, the opponent gave two copies of allotment documents. One document is dated 01/04/1999 which is in favour of Mr.Ramesh Hemnani. It is in respect of flat No.304 on 3rd floor, admeasuring 550 sq.ft. in C wing of SilverGardens.
Second allotment document is dated 03/05/2000 in favour of Mr.Ramesh Mathrani in respect of flat Nos.101 & 102 each admeasuring approximately 550 sq.ft. in E wing of SilverGardens.
22. We have perused those two documents. Document dated 01/04/1999 is in favour of Mr.Ramesh Hemnani, Mumbai, is on Stamp Paper of `20/-. This is not a registered agreement. Affidavit of purchaser Mr.Ramesh Hemnani is not filed on record. Second document dated 03/05/2000 is in favour of Mr.Ramesh Mathrani, is also not a registered agreement. The opponent did not execute registered agreement in favour of Mr.Ramesh Hemnani or Mr.Ramesh Mathrani. It is a case of the opponent that these documents are executed by the opponent in favour of Mr.Ramesh Hemnani and Mr.Ramesh Mathrani in the year 1999-2000. There is no whisper of alleged transactions in the written version, though alleged transactions are of the year 1999-2000.
23. The complainant has filed on record certain documents. Those documents show that the flats are still in the name of the complainant. The complainant has filed on record document dated 08/02/2001. Said document is pertaining to Silver Gardens Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.. In the record of the Society, flat No.C-304, flat No.E-101 and flat No.E-102 are shown in the name of complainant-Mrs.Hermoine Salazar. In document dated 31/03/2000 pertaining to Silver Gardens Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., those flats are not shown in the name of Mr.Ramesh Hemnani or Mr.Ramesh Mathrani. If really possession of those flats were given to Mr.Ramesh Hemnani or Mr.Ramesh Mathrani, they were recorded their names in the record of the Society. In view of this discussion, submission of the opponent that he has disposed of the flats cannot be accepted.
24. The complainant had given her land to the opponent for development under agreement. The land was developed by the opponent. He had made gain out of said development by disposing of the flats to other buyers, but complainant did not get benefit of alleged agreement.
The complainant is a consumer.
The opponent failed to give flat or flats of aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. to the complainant as per agreement well within time. He made breach of terms and conditions of the agreement. Certainly, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opponent/developer. Shelter has been recognized as a basic right of citizens. Providing shelter to the citizens however remains a cherished hope as the same requires involvement of huge finance as also requires infrastructural preparations. The complainant has given her property for development to the opponent with hope of getting flat or flats having aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. within reasonable time. However, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent.
Therefore, complainant is entitled to get possession of flat or flats having aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. as per the agreement.
-: ORDER :-
1.
Complaint is allowed.
2. Opponent/developer is directed to hand over possession of the flat or flats having aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. to the complainant in terms of agreement dated 07/11/1987 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3. Opponent is directed to pay an amount of `50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony.
4. Opponent is directed to pay `10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant and shall bear his own costs.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced Dated 19th November 2013.
[HON'ABLE MRS. Usha S.Thakare] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER dd.