SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
S.P. Tavade, President and S.T. Barne, Judicial Member
M/s. Saukhyam Construction and Ors. —Applicants
versus
Saabir Shakeel Mazgaonkar and Anr. —Respondents
Transfer Application No.TA/22/03 and TA/22/04
Decided on 15.9.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicants:Abhijit Tulsankar, Advocate
For the Respondents:P.B. Kadam, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Transfer Application –The District Commission is supposed to decide the complaints summarily and preferably within three months.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.22B [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 —S.48] – Transfer Application – Transfer applications to be decided within 2 months – If the applications referred by applicant himself in the transfer application, are also referred in the earlier revision petition challenging the order of District Commission on Exh.66 and 68 clearly shows that all such orders are passed during the proceeding before District Commission – The District Commission is supposed to decide the complaints summarily and preferably within three months – It appears that these applicants are preferring applications one after another and more particularly by making demand of issuance of witness summons to the bank in respect of documents of loan executed between complainant and the bank which has no relevancy with the dispute between the parties and for securing said documents much time is spent. Therefore, if in such background in day to day business, the District Commission has made certain observations, while deciding such applications and on respective submissions made by the parties, it cannot be inferred that the members of the Commission are prejudice or bias with either party – Therefore, the proceeding before the Commission are being decided by Bench, they may differ some times, but these are the judicial orders and the differing judgment or order can be referred in accordance with the statutory provision. Likewise, when the two members of the Ratnagiri District Commission differed while deciding Exh.57, the matter was referred to the third member from Kolhapur Bench as per requirement and majority order was prevailed. Therefore, there appears no substance in the allegations which are based on surmises and assumptions. There is no sufficient ground to transfer the files to the file of another Commission – Applications dismissed. [Para 8]

Result: Application dismissed.

ORDER

S.T. Barne, Judicial Member—The applicant M/s. Saukhyam Construction through its partners has filed this application for transfer of consumer case no.10/19 and 11/19 pending on the file of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Ratnagiri to the file of District Dispute Redressal Commission Kolhapur. As similar question is involved in both the matters, they are decided by common order.

2. It is the contention of applicants that they are opponents in original complaint and the present respondent Shabbir Sahil Majgaonkar is the original complainant. Said complainant has filed consumer complaint before District Commission Ratnagiri praying for directions and order from the District Commission directing these applicants to hand over the gala in question, together with aminities and facilities as per agreement dated 11/01/2016. The complainant has also claimed Rs.9,00,000/- towards loss incurred in business and Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment. It is the contention of the applicants that the respondent has suppressed the material fact before the District Commission that the respondent has purchased gala from erstwhile Owner by agreement dated 18/10/1996, wherein he was conducting his business. These applicants intended to redevelop the property where said gala was situated. The respondent therefore, approached the applicants and started negotiating with them. The respondent compelled the applicants to enter into agreement dated 11/01/2016 whereby the respondent agreed to provide gala in question admeasuring about 350 sq.ft. along with covered parking space of 350 sq.ft. in lieu of old shop occupied by respondent and his father. The respondent showed his intention to purchase one more gala admeasuring about 150 sq.ft. It is further alleged by the applicants that they received notice dated 21/07/2017 from Advocate of Rajapur Urban co-operative Bank Ltd. Whereby the bank has informed to the applicants that respondent had obtained loan of Rs.20,00,000/-, from the said bank by executing mortgage deed on old gala as co-lateral security. The bank has also informed the applicants that the respondent has executed said documents fraudulently with applicants without intimating the bank about redevelopment of the property and that they are allotting new gala to the respondent. The bank termed the said transaction as illegal and directed to respondent bank to deposit entire loan amount. In view of the said notice, the applicants’ refrained themselves to hand over new gala to respondent despite of obtaining occupancy certificate in respect of the property claimed by the respondent on 14/03/2018, though they intended to comply the alleged agreement and to resolve the issue amicably. The respondent has played fraud and cheated the applicant concealing the fact of mortgage executed in favour of bank and loan obtained and violated terms of agreement. The District Commission has no jurisdiction and not competent to decide the issues involved in the proceeding. The applicants have filed separate Civil Suit against the respondents wherein the respondent have filed counter claim claiming the same relief claimed before Consumer Commission. The respondent also filed complaint before Maharashtra RERA Authority claiming similar relief. Therefore, it is dismissed by RERA Court.

3. It is the contention of applicants that keeping in mind the aforesaid factual legal position, they have filed application at Exh.57 on 17/11/2021 before District Commission, Ratnagiri, thereby praying for direction to issue witness summons to bank for producing loan documents. The Hon’ble Member Smt.Manisha Kulkarni of District Commission Ratnagiri has allowed the application by directing the bank to produce loan documents sought by the applicants. Subsequent to said order, the Commission presided over by Hon’ble Member Shri. Vijay Kumar Jadhav and Member Shri. Shrikant Kumbhar by order dated 14/01/2022 on Exh.57. Shri.Vijay Kumar Jadhav allowed the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top