NIRANJANBHAI CHOKSI Vs. KANAKNIDHI CORPORATION
LAWS(GUJCDRC)-2003-9-3
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 11,2003

NIRANJANBHAI CHOKSI Appellant
VERSUS
KANAKNIDHI CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President ''By way of this complaint the complainant has prayed for following reliefs : (a) Direct the opponents to remove the defects in construction incurring minimum expenses of Rs. 2,40,500/-, of premises by taking all necessary steps in accordance with relevant building laws, rules, and the notifications issued by the concerned authorities, and (b) Direct the opponents to pay the Impact Fees of Rs. 15,88,955/-, Municipal Taxes of Rs. 1,21,893/-, Cess, Levies and Fees as are payable in accordance with the agreement and confirmation made by the opponents so as to regularize the occupation of the premises purchased by the complainant. (c) Direct the opponents to pay a total amount of Rs. 19,51,348/- towards above claims. 
(2.) Opponent has resisted this complaint inter alia on the ground that this complaint is not maintainable at law as the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer, that this Commission will not have jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint as highly complicated questions of facts and law arise and detailed and elaborate evidence is required, that the transaction alleged in the complaint is for commercial purpose, that R.C.S. No. 267/2002 has been filed against the Surat Municipal Corporation and it is sought to be directed to collect impact fees and regularize the construction, that no permission has been sought from the Civil Court to file any other suit to recover impact fees and that the present complaint is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C.
(3.) When this complaint came up for hearing in the first session the complainants learned Advocate wanted to give an application for withdrawal of this complaint with liberty to take up his cause which has been presented in the pending complaint, by way of appropriate proceeding. At that stage the learned Advocate appearing for the opponent objected for any such permission being granted. The matter was kept for passing of the order. However, when this matter is again called out we are surprised to notice that neither of the learned Advocates is present before this Commission and that neither the complainant has given application as was submitted nor has the opponent given objection as was submitted.;


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