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

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 34806

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Harishchandra G. Takle (deceased) (Through Legal Heirs & Representatives Mr. Vishwanath H. Takle AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Rane Builders Page 1 (Through its Co-owner Mr. Mohan Gopal Rane) AND ANR – Respondent
SC/27/A/19/869



Petitioner Advocates:ADV.WAVIKAR ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI APPEAL No.A/19/869 (Arisen out of order dated 25/04/2019 in CC/14/32 passed by the Addl.District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban)

Mr. Harishchandra G. Takle (Deceased) (Through Legal Heirs & Representative

1) Mr. Vishwanath H. Takle R/o. At C/24, Sarvodaya Bhuvan, 1st Floor, Gokhale Road North, Dadar (W), Mumabai – 400028

2) Mrs. Manisha Shashikant Lendhe Represented by Mr. Vishwanath H. Takle R/o. At C/24, Sarvodaya Bhuvan, 1st Floor, Gokhale Road North, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028

3) Mr. Shivnath Harishchandra Takle Represented by Mr. Vishwanath H. Takle R/o. At C/24, Sarvodaya Bhuvan, 1st Floor, Gokhale Road North, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 ...Appellants/Org. Complainants V/s

1. M/s Rane Builders (Through its Co-owner Mr. Mohan Gopal Rane – Deceased)

i)Smt. Shubhangi Mohan Rane (Wife/Legal heir of late Mr.Mohan Gopal Rane)

Add.: Flat Nol 903, B Wing, Building No. 110, Rajshree Clover, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai 400 089 ii)Surabhi Mohan Rane (Daughter / Legal heir of Late Mr. Mohan Gopal Rane)

Add.: Flat Nol 903, B Wing, Building No. 110, Rajshree Clover, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai 400 089 iii)Ms. Shreya Mohan Rane (Daughter / Legal heir of Late Mr. Mr. Mohan Gopal Rane) Add.: Flat Nol 903, B Wing, Building No. 110, Rajshree Clover, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai 400 089 iv)Master Shubham Mohan Rane (Son / Legal heir of Late Mr.Mohan Gopal Rane)

Through Guardian Smt.Shubhangi M.Rane Add.: Flat No.903, B Wing, Building No. 110, Rajshree Clover, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai 400 089

2. Mrs. Supriya Bapu Mhadnak Legal heir and representative of late Mr. Bhaskar Laxman Rane, R/o. At 16, Gokhale Wadi, Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028

3. Mrs. Madhuri Devidas Metar Legal heir and representative of late Mr. Bhaskar Laxman Rane, R/o. At A/11, Anjana, Pestom Sagar Road No. 6, Chembur, Mumbai – 400089

4. Shri. Chandrashekhar G Rane Legal heir and representative Of late Mr. Bhaskar Laxman Rane, A/19, Anjana CHS. Ltd., Pestom Sagar Road NO. 6, Chembur, Mumbai – 400089

5. Smt. Sandhya Gopal Rane (Maiden name) allies Mrs. Sandhya Sanjay Javkar (Name after marriage)

Legal heir and representative Of late Mr. Bhaskar Laxman Rane, Add.: Roon No. 06, Gokhale Wadi, Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028

6. Shri. Santosh Gopal Rane Legal heir and representative Of late Mr. Bhaskar Laxman Rane, R/o at 27, B/36, Indraprakash CHS.

Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East)

Mumbai – 400068 ...Respondents/Org, OPs BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate Sajira Jondhale i/b. Advocate U.B.Wavikar for appellant None present for respondents.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT (Dt.29/01/2025)

Per Hon’ble Member Mr.Vijay C.Premchandani

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/original complainant u/sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed in consumer complaint no.32/2014 dated 25/04/2019 by the Additional Ld.District Consumer Forum/Commission, Mumbai Suburban.

The brief facts of the case-

2. Appellant is the original complainant. Appellant has booked flat no.5 on 5th floor having built-up area admeasuring 519 sq.ft. in the building situated on the plot of land bearing no.343, TPS IV Mahim, known as Gokhale Wadi, situated at Bhawani Shankar Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 for the total consideration of Rs.4,35,960/-. The appellant/org.complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- to the respondents/org.Ops towards the part consideration amount. After exhausting 27 years also, the alleged flat was not delivered to the present appellant by the respondents. Therefore, the present appellant was compelled to file the consumer complaint against the respondents for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

3. The Ld.District Consumer Commission after hearing both the sides allowed the consumer complaint and passed an order to refund the amount of consideration paid by the appellant to the respondents for the alleged f

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top