Shri Vikas Bhika Kale Vs. Shri Asit Balwant Doshi M/S. Harekrishna Builders and Developers, Mumbai

Shri Vikas Bhika Kale vs Shri Asit Balwant Doshi M/S. Harekrishna Builders and Developers, Mumbai

Type Court Judgment Court Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai Decided Jul 20, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1111302

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1111302
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Judge: Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member
Decided On: Jul 20, 2009
Case Number: First Appeal No.1134 of 2008 (In Consumer Complaint No.250 of 2006)
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shri Vikas Bhika Kale

Advocate Appellant Mr. Vikas Bhika Kale in Person. Mr. J.B. Vashi, Advocate for the Respondent.

Respondent

Shri Asit Balwant Doshi M/S. Harekrishna Builders and Developers, Mumbai

Excerpt

.....on 05/11/2001 and it was also promised to the complainant that requirement as to all necessary papers required to take loan from the m.b.p.t. would be complied with and failing which money paid will be refunded with interest @ 24% p.a. it is grievance of the complainant that he made house loan case with hdfc. it sanctioned the loan, but he could not furnish all the documents since same were not furnished by the respondent/o.p. ultimately, after the flat was ready he had to withdraw money from his provident fund and paid the price and thereafter the possession was delivered to him, supra. correspondence further shows that the flat was not ready till the year 2004. complainant claimed compensation for the delay caused in handing over the possession to him. same were quantified at rs.15,000/- by the forum below. considering the fact that as per letter dated 14/11/2000 respondent/o.p. promised complainant to pay rs.2,000/- per month a rent till the possession is delivered, it suitably compensated the complainant for the delayed possession also and, therefore, whatever is granted by the forum below is just and proper. no case made out by the complainant for its enhancement. hence, we hold accordingly and pass the following order :-order 1. appeal stands dismissed. 2. in the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs. 3. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Full Judgment

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 31/07/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.250/2006 Shri Vikas Bhika Kale V/s. Shri Asit Balwant Doshi, M/s.Harekrishna Builders and Developers by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum (âForum below in short).

Admittedly, appellant/complainant had booked a flat with respondent/O.P. and as per the agreement dated 08/12/2000 said flat was from the slum development project. Possession was actually received on 11/10/2004 though it was initially agreed to hand over the possession on 05/11/2001. Because of delayed possession, complainant claimed compensation. Same were granted at Rs.15,000/- by forum below, but not satisfied with it, complainant himself preferred this appeal. O.P. did not prefer any appeal.

We heard Appellant/complainant-Mr.Vikas Bhika Kale in person and Mr.J.B. Vashi, Advocate for the respondent/O.P. Perused the record.

Letter dated 14/11/2000 issued by respondent/O.P. spells out the terms which do mention that possession was agreed to be delivered on 05/11/2001 and it was also promised to the complainant that requirement as to all necessary papers required to take loan from the M.B.P.T. would be complied with and failing which money paid will be refunded with interest @ 24% p.a. It is grievance of the complainant that he made house loan case with HDFC. It sanctioned the loan, but he could not furnish all the documents since same were not furnished by the respondent/O.P. Ultimately, after the flat was ready he had to withdraw money from his Provident Fund and paid the price and thereafter the possession was delivered to him, supra. Correspondence further shows that the flat was not ready till the year 2004. Complainant claimed compensation for the delay caused in handing over the possession to him. Same were quantified at Rs.15,000/- by the Forum below. Considering the fact that as per letter dated 14/11/2000 respondent/O.P. promised complainant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month a rent till the possession is delivered, it suitably compensated the complainant for the delayed possession also and, therefore, whatever is granted by the Forum below is just and proper. No case made out by the complainant for its enhancement. Hence, we hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

ORDER

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. In the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

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

Same Court & Year Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDR... Same Parties Shri Vikas Bhika Kale vs Shri Asit Balwant Doshi M/S. Harekri... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Mrs....