Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
SHIRISH RAMCHANDRA JOSHI V/S UMALIYA BUILDER CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS, decided on Friday, June 13, 2003.
[ In the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai, Complaint No. 328 of 2000. ] 13/06/2003
Judge(s) : M.S. RANE, PRESIDENT & V.K. DATE, MEMBER
Advocate(s) : Complainant MJR. Ramchandra Shaukar Jashi, Authorised Representative. Opposite Party None.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2004 (1) CPJ 231"  ==   ""  







        M.S. Rane President1. It is noticed that although the O.Ps. have been served with notices long back they have not responded thereto either by filing appearance or written statements. Therefore this matter is in order to proceed ex parte.2. Proof of record of service of process of this Commission is produced by way of postal acknowledgement receipts bearing Rubber Stamp and Signature of the O.Ps. We have perused the same and returned the same to the complainant for safe custody. Zerox copy thereof is taken on record.3. Since the O.Ps. are not present nor they have filed any written statement the matter proceeded ex parte.(For brevity’s sake hereinafter complainant is referred to as ‘Galapurchaser’ and respondent as ‘Builder’).4. The Gala purchaser has filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 10-12 00 000/- towards compensation alleging deficiency on the part of the Builders.Few relevant facts:5. By agreement dated 8.1.1991 which is a registered agreement the builder agreed to provide one shop premises to the complainant. It is noticed that the complainant was already a tenant of the builder in the old building and the builder took the same for reconstruction. On demolition of the old building and in the agreement the builder agreed to provide to the complainant in lieu of old premises surrendered a shop in the new building. The said agreement mentions the terms and conditions in respect of the said deal.6. The builder in response to the promise proceeded with the construction but did not complete the same within the agreed time. With great difficulty the complainant obtained the possession of the shop from the builder. The complainant proceeded to state that the shop which is made available is not which was agreed to be given by the builder to him. In that it was understood that the shop premises that would be made available to the complainant would be from the front side of the building whereas shop premises given was on the rare side such commercial potentiality.7. The complainant further alleged that although the builder had agreed to provide shop for commercial purpose the sanction obtained by him from the Municipal Authority for construction is not for commercial purpose and this fact was suppressed.8. The third deficiency alleged is that the builder has not completed all the formalities of execution of documents etc.9. As stated the builders have been duly served but they have not appeared nor filed any written statement.10. The complainant has made available copy of the agreement as also related papers which clearly shows the builder agreed to provide shop premises to the complainant.11. The case and claim of the complainant and various grievance sought in the complaint have not been averted and challenged by and on behalf of builders since they have not appeared or nor filed written statement despite service.12. Consequently the case and claim of the complainant has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.13. The case is duly supported with documents relied upon in the complaint and copies thereof have been made available along with the complaint.14. That being so deficiency against the builder stands established. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 10-12 00 000/- towards compensation but it needs to be stated that no requisite particulars justifying the said claim have been furnished. As per recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. reported in the III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=VI (2000) SLT 867=(2000) 7 SCC 688 it has laid down that the party claiming compensation must furnish requisite particulars and establish quantum of compensation claimed. In the instant case such particulars are not at all furnished.15. However all said and done the material made available squarely shows there being deficiency in service on the part of builder on major respects as noticed hereinabove.16. Therefore taking into consideration the totality as obtained in the matter herein a sum of Rs. 3 00 000/- towards compensation and hence the following order.ORDER1. O.P./builders are held deficient in rendering services to the complainant.2. O.P./builders shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3 00 000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. with effect from 1.8.2000 till realisation.3. O.P./builders shall pay cost of proceedings to the complainant quantified to Rs. 3 000/-.4. Office to furnish copies of the order to the parties.Complaint allowed.