LAWS(NCD)-2004-2-77

S N NETRAGAONKAR Vs. LILA JOSHI

Decided On February 24, 2004
S N NETRAGAONKAR Appellant
V/S
LILA JOSHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision is directed against the directions to the appellant opposite party by the State Commission to refund the entire amount of Rs. 5,50,000 with interest @ 12% p. a.

(2.) THE brief facts required to be noticed are: the complainant Leela Joshi booked a flat in the Paradise cottage of the appellant and deposited the amount of Rs. 5,50,000 uptill 6. 1. 1999. The Paradise cottage scheme did not succeed. The complainant was persuaded to opt for another scheme of Shivam Apartment. That also did not mature. The complainant demanded refund of the amount which was not given. Thereafter on 29. 6. 1998 a flat was registered and the appellant started construction in the name of Satyam Shivam Sundram Apartment. The area of the flat appears to have been reduced to only 840 sq. ft. for the same price. Mr. Dilip Kumar Srivastava threatened the complainant not to complete the construction and collected another Rs. 85,000 and assured that the construction of the flat would be completed by July 1999. But neither the construction was completed nor the flat was handed over to the complainant. Dilip Kumar Srivastava directed the complainant to Mr. S. N. Netragaonkar. Dilip Kumar Srivastava has left for Orissa for good. Mr. S. N. Netragaonkar refused to pay back the amount. On complaint being filed by the petitioner, in the course of arguments, the State Commission took note of the submission of parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondent had agreed to refund the amount after taking instructions from his client i. e. , petitioner herein provided the complainant executed the date of cancellation of a flat in question. Parties then agreed and a consent order was passed.

(3.) SEEING these facts and circumstances, the order passed by the State Commission appears to be proper and it does not suffer from illegality or material irregularly to allow this Commission to invoke its powers under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, revision does not have any substance. It is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.