STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/24/124 (Arisen out of order dated 16/07/2024 in EA/22/88 in RBT/CC/12/437 passed by the Addl.District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban)

1.M/s.Chaitanya Construction

2.M/s.Sweta Developers Pvt.Ltd.

3.Mr.Ajit Gopaldas Thakkar All of them having address at Ground floor, Gokul Apartment ....... Revision Petitioners/

Haridas Nagar, Behind Kora Kendra Org.OPs Shimpoli Road, Borivali (W)

Mumbai 400 092 Versus Madhuvan Co-operative Society Ltd.

Through its Authorized Representative M.G.Road, Near Kala Hanuman Temple ………Respondent/org.complainant Kandivali(W), Mumbai 400 067 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT:

Advocate Anand V.Patwardhan for revision petitioners.

Advocate Sajira Jondhale i/b. Advocate U.B.Wavikar for respondent.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT (Dt.24/01/2025)

Per Hon’ble Member Mr.Vijay C. Premchandani

1. The revision petitioners have filed the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 16/07/2024 passed by the Ld. Additional District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban in Execution Application no.EA/22/88 in RBT/CC/12/437.

The brief facts of the case are as under:-

2. The Ld. Additional District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban was pleased to pass order dated 17/10/2019 in RBT/CC/12/437 directing the present revision petitioners to obtain full O.C. and to do Conveyance of the land in favour of the Petitioner Society and to pay to the respondent society a sum of Rs.500/- per day till compliance of the order. However, there is no mention of the period in the operative part of the order. The petitioners however submitted in the facts of the case that subsequently Execution Application no.EA/22/88 was filed by the respondent society i.e. the original complainant demanding higher amount from the petitioners i.e. Opponents, that time of six months was given in the order dated 17/10/2019 without mentioning the period. However, inference is to be drawn from para 20 of the order and point no.3 in the operative part of the said order dated 17/10/2019, the same would be for six months from the date of the order, which could be from 17/04/2020. It is further contended that the default period would start from April 2020 to 05/09/2022 i.e. filing date of the execution application, which would be 871 days and the amount would be Rs.500/- per day would amount to Rs.4,35,500/- and with legal cost of Rs.10,000/- it would be total amount of Rs.4,45,500/- and not Rs.5,27,000/- as alleged by the respondent society. Thus Rs.81,500/- was an excessive demand by the respondent society in the execution application, which the Ld.District Consumer Commission did not acknowledge.

3. The petitioners /org.OPs in the execution application filed reply as on

16/07/2024 explaining the discrepancy and excessive amount demanded by the respondent society, which approached the Ld.District Consumer Commission with unclean hands not appreciating the facts and the Ld.District Consumer Commission on the same day passed an order i.e. 16/07/2024 that a seizure warrant be issued and sent to the Collector for necessary action. Therefore, being aggrieved with the said order, the present revision petitioners have filed the revision petition on the aforesaid ground that the amount calculated by the respondent Society i.e. original complainant is not proper and the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission as on 16/07/2024 is required to be set aside. The petitioners prayed that the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission as on 16/07/2024 in Execution Application no.EA/22/88 may be set aside.

4. The present revision petition was admitted and the notices were issued to the respondent Society. The Respondent appeared through its counsel and both the parties counsel argued the present revision petition. After hearing both the sides and the law and reasons discussed herein below, we pass the following order:-

LAW & REASONI