JAYAPRAPHA H PHALE Vs. M T LAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) m/s. Jayshil Construction was opposite party No.1 in the complaint filed by M. T. Lad and others - respondents. Amount of Rs.82,950 was alleged to have been paid by respondent No.1 to M/s. Jayshil Construction through H. V. Phalle, proprietor for allotment of plot and M/s. Jayshil Construction had also issued allotment letter dated 13.4.1995 to the respondents. It was stated that M/s. Jayshil Construction informed respondent No.1 on telephone that as the category of plot (s) has been changed, only those who were residents of Navi Mumbai could be the members of the Society. Since the respondents were not the residents of Navi Mumbai, they could not get the membership in the proposed Society as per new CIDCO policy. Respondents, therefore, asked Shri Phalle to refund the amount paid. On amount not being refunded the respondents filed complaint which was contested by filing written version by M/s. Jayshil Construction. On considering the admission made in para No.12 of that written version as also letter dated 26.9.1996 sent to respondent No.1 by M/s. Jayshil Construction, the State Commission by modifying the order of District Forum has directed in terms of the impugned order to pay the amount paid by cheques to the respondents together with interest @ 9% p. a. Order of State Commission would show that after the death of M. V. Phalle, the business of M/s. Jayshil Construction is being carried by his widow who has filed the present revision petition. Only submission advanced by Ms. Anchal Jain for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not liable to refund the amount paid to her husband. Submission is, however, without any merit. Since the business carried by M/s. Jayshil Construction is being run by the petitioner she is liable to refund the amount received by M/s. Jayshil Construction from the respondent. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sec.21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.