NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. LAXMAN TABAJI SANAP
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2008-9-2
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 30,2008

NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
Laxman Tabaji Sanap Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Consumer Fourm, Thane dated 4.7.2007 in Consumer Complaint No. 600/2006, whereby, while allowing the complaint, the Forumbelow directed O.P.No.l Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation to bear excess payment made to O.P.No.2 in the form of delay payment charges and interest charged for delayed payment and also directed O.P.No.1 Corporation to pay Rs. 10,000 towards compensation and Rs. 5,000 towards cost to the complainant, the Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the said award.
(2.) FACTS to extent material may be stated as under:
(3.) SHRI Laxman Tabaji Sanap had filed consumer complaint against his employer Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and against Marketing Manager -III, CIDCO, C.B.D. Belapur alleging deficiency in service on their part. According to the complainant, he is working as Traffic Controller 9 with Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. He applied for housing loan of Rs. 2,43,023. It was sanctioned by O.P.No.l by letter dated 31.12.2003. By this amount he was to purchase a house in the scheme of CIDCO, O.P. No. 2 known as GHANSOLI GHARAONDA. O.P.No. 1 had sanctioned almost 80% of total housing cost. First instalment of Rs. 48,600 was disbursed to O.P. No. 2 by demand draft of Bank of Maharashtra on 3.1.2004. The O.P. No. 1, Corporation assured complainant to pay balance loan amount of Rs. 1,94,423 to O.P. No.2 CIDCO on or before 31.12.2004. The complainant alleged that Corporation did not release further instalments and therefore O.P.No. 2 CIDCO was levying on him interest at the rate of 18%per annum. Hence, he filed consumer complaint and prayed that O.P. No. 2 CIDCO should be directed by an interim order not to cancel or terminate plot or house allotted to him. He also prayed that O.P. No. 1 be directed to pay Rs. 2,12,723 inclusive of escalation cost, fine or penalty of O.P.No. 2 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, direct refund of Rs. 48,000 towards rent and also claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. O.P. No. 1 filed written statement but it was without any verification. Hence, it was not considered by the Forum below. O.P. No. 2 did not file written statement as it was formal party made to this complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.