Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, President

         Heard Mr.H.G.Dharmadhikari-Advocate for the complainant.

         This matter was in the morning session.  On behalf of the complainant vakalatnama has been filed by three advocates namely, Mr.H.G.Dharmadhikari, Mr.Tushar Gharat & Ms.Ruby Madhye.  However, even though there were three signatures, only two names appears in the vakalatnama viz. Mr.H.G.Dharmadhikari, Mr.Tushar Gharat. In the morning session Advocate Mr.H.G.Dharmadhikari was not present and Mr.Tushar Gharat & Ms.Ruby Madhye –Advocates were present.  The complaint was argued by Ms.Ruby Madhye –Advocate with the slight intervention of Mr.Tushar Gharat –Advocate and we expressed that the complaint pertains to the commercial premises and it is a commercial transaction and, therefore, complaint is not tenable.  We expressed that either he should withdraw or Commission is going to reject it.  Both the Ld.advocates made a statement that they are withdrawing the complaint and requested time to draft withdrawal pursis or memo.  Accordingly, we granted time and kept back the matter hoping that the withdrawal pursis as promised will be tendered by them.  However, instead of tendering such a pursis/memo as per the promise, when we assembled in the afternoon session, Advocate H.G.Dharmadhikari appeared and submitted that he wants to argue the matter and he do not desire to withdraw the complaint.  He also submitted that similar complaint has been admitted by another bench and, therefore, it is not proper to withdraw the complaint.  Therefore, though we find such a practice should not be encouraged, however, in the interest of justice and the parties should feel that they were heard, we decided to hear them and heard the matter.

Pendency of another complaint and/or admission of another complaint by another bench may be one of the factors to admit the complaint.  However, that order is not binding on another bench is a settled position of law.  Therefore, because the other complaint is pending and admitted by another bench, this complaint should be admitted as of right is not a proper contention and we reject the same. On the contrary orders passed in this complaint after giving reasons will prevail upon said complaint.

Then Ld.Counsel submitted that this complaint is covered by definition of ‘Consumer’ and though the transaction is for commercial purpose, members have taken the premises for ‘self employment’.  Except this no other contention or submission was made.

This complaint has been filed by “Mainframe Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.” through its Chairman Mr.Kiran Ajwani, Secretary Josi Cherian and Treasurer Mr.G.D.Bangard.  Admittedly, the members of the complainant society are the buyers of commercial premises located in “MainframeInformationTechnologyPark”. The deficiencies which are pointed out in para 2 of the complaint are as follows:-

a) Hi-tech security systems;

b) 24 hours water supply;

c) uninterrupted power supply from MSEB/Reliance Energy, etc.;

d) dedicated mini telephone exchange;

e) unblemished road from Goregaon station to the estate;

f) top line office system, elegant interiors, high speed internet connectivity, hi-tech plug and play environment;

g)  Exclusive membership to the Emerald Club worth `2 lakh on purchase of every tenement or unit.

Permission