DATTARAM Vs. VINAYAK NIWAS SCHEME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 09.12.2010 in appeal no. 293 of 2009 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, the State Commission ). By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the complainant and affirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded (in short, the District Forum ), the latter having allowed the petitioner s complaint partly and directing the opposite party / respondent to pay to the petitioner / complainant Rs.2,500/- with 9% interest thereon from 01.01.1990 till realisation as well as Rs.4,000/- by way of compensation for mental harassment and Rs.100/- towards costs.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner / complainant participated in a housing Scheme floated by the promoter / developer of the respondent / opposite party way back in 1990. The Scheme required an applicant to register with the opposite party by depositing Rs.10 and then pay Rs.250/- per month for 25 months, to be able to get a plot of land measuring 1200 sq. ft. at a place called Waghala. It is undisputed that the petitioner did not pay all the instalments and also kept quiet for a long time till 2007 when he filed a complaint with the local Police Station alleging that the promoter of the Scheme had cheated him. Thereafter, pleading continuance of the cause of action only on the strength of his complaint of 2007 lodged with the Police, the petitioner filed the complaint in question before the District Forum on 18.11.2008. As noted above, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly and issued the above-mentioned directions to the opposite party / respondent. It is the petitioner who went up in appeal against the said order seeking enhancement of the relief granted by the District Forum. Notably, the opposite party did not challenge the order of either the District Forum or the State Commission.

(3.) Despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear and sent a communication dated 08.07.2010 stating that his petition be decided on merits.