Landmark Judgements

CIDCO of Maharashtra Ltd

 

1.  CIDCO of Maharashtra Ltd
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2754 OF 2006 Date of filing : 28/12/2006

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 92 OF 2005 Date of order : 19/03/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE

 

Shri K.K. Trivedi

A/3/7/6 Millennium Towers

Sector-9 Sanpada,

Navi Mumbai – 400 705. … Appellant/org. complainant

 

VS

 

1. The Managing Director

CIDCO of Maharashtra Ltd.,

Nirmal, 2nd floor, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021.

2. The Manager (Marketing-1)

CIDCO of Maharashtra Ltd.,

CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai – 400 614.

3. The Asstt. Estate Office,

(Nerul / Sanpada)

CIDCO of Maharashtra Ltd.,

Sector-3, Sanpada,

Navi Mumbai – 400 705. … Respondents/org. O.Ps.


Corum: Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

 

Present: None for the appellant.

 

Mr.Prakash Kadam, Advocate for the respondents.

 

- : ORAL ORDER :-


Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

None is present for the appellant. Mr.Prakash Kadam, Advocate for the respondents/CIDCO.

The complainant, who is appellant, had filed consumer complaint against CIDCO alleging deficiency in service. The complainant pleaded in his complaint that he had deposited with CIDCO an advance maintenance amount of Rs.4,596/-. He pleaded that CIDCO was not giving any interest on that advance maintenance deposited by him. Therefore, he claimed refund of that amount and also claimed amount towards mental harassment of Rs.32,532/-. He also claimed that the CIDCO had not given gas pipeline within reasonable time. Listing these three grievances, he filed consumer complaint against the CIDCO and its officials.

CIDCO filed written statement and contested the complaint. According to the CIDCO, as per terms and conditions of allotment, maintenance of Rs.4,596/- was collected from the complainant and it is kept with CIDCO till the flat purchasers of that particular building forms Society. After Society is formed, the said amount is given to the custody of the Society. So, there was no question of refunding the said amount to the complainant or paying any interest on that amount. As far as delay in installation of gas pipeline is concerned, CIDCO pleaded that as per agreement, gas pipeline is installed in the flat of the complainant and delay occurred because of B.P.C.L., who is giving gas supply line. Thus, CIDCO pleaded that they had not committed any deficiency in service.

Considering the affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below agreed to the contentions made by the CIDCO and was pleased to dismiss the complaint and against the said dismissal order, complainant has filed this appeal.

When this appeal was called out, none appeared for the appellant/org. complainant. Therefore, we asked Mr.Prakash Kadam, Advocate for the respondents/CIDCO to advance arguments. We heard him extensively and we are finding that there is no merit in the appeal. CIDCO has taken advance maintenance charges as per terms and conditions of the allotment and once Society is formed, that amount is given to the Society. The Forum below also rightly held that delay in installation of gas pipeline is on account of B.P.C.L. and no blame can be made on the shoulder of the CIDCO. Thus, on finding there was no substance in the complaint, the Forum below rightly dismissed the complaint. The appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit. Hence, we pass the following order :-

 

-: ORDER :-

 

1. Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

2. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

 

(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar)

Member Presiding Judicial Member

 



X
Su Mo Tu We Thu Fr Sa