STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal no. A/18/208.

(Arisen out of order dated 09/01/2018 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/17/246 by the District Commission South Mumbai Iqbal Ghulam Hussain Bhati.

R/at. Room No.34, Building No.114-B, Hakim Dayam Chawl, Patthe Bapurao Marg, Mumbai 400 008. ... Appellant(s).

Ver sus

1. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika, Through Commissioner-

Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Head office Mahapalika, Fort, Mumbai 400 001.

2. The Administrative Officer (School)

D-Ward, Jaganath Shankar Seth Muncipal School, Bridge, Grant Road (W), Mumbai 400 007.

3. Assistant Commissioner, D-Ward Muncipal Office Building, Jabanputra Compound, Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 007. ...Respondent(s)

BEFORE Justice S.P. Tavade – President.

S.T.Barne – Judicial Member For the appellant(s) : Self.

For the respondent (s) : Advocate- Rajeshri Valvi.

ORDER

(Delivered on 15^th November 2022)

Per Hon’ble Justice- Shri. S.P.Tavade:

(1) Appellant is present in person. Advocate Rajeshwari Valvi is present for respondent. Perused the complaint. Heard the appellant in person and Advocate for respondent. Perused the impugned order which is as under-

‘Heard complainant. Considering the contents of complaint and documents placed on record, we do not find any substance against the opponent that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Hence, complaint is not admitted’.

(2) The said order is without any reason. If the complaint is perused, there are specific allegations against the respondent that the appellant had booked the premises of the respondent and paid an amount of Rs.28,550/-out of which Rs.15,000/- was towards the refundable deposit. The receipt of the same is enclosed along with the complaint. There is no correspondence between the appellant and the respondent. There is no material on record as to why the amount was not refunded to the complainant in the year 2017. Advocate for the respondent submits that on 15/11/2021 the respondent has refunded Rs.2,587/- to the complainant. So, it can be said that the respondent was liable to refund some amount to the complainant which was not refunded till the filing of complaint. The said aspect was not properly considered by the District Commission. In fact, the District Commission has simply read the complaint and document and without assigning any reason dismissed the complaint. In fact the complainant has prima facie made out the claim of refund of amount and ultimately it was refunded in the year 2022. Therefore, we feel it necessary to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and direct the District Commission to consider the material placed before it. Hence, the complaint is sent back to the District Commission. District Commission is directed to admit the complaint and proceed with the matter according to Law.

Parties to appear before the District Commission on 10/01/2023.

[JUSTICE S.P.TAVADE]

PRESIDENT [S.T.Barne]

JUDICIAL MEMBER hvm