CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LIMITED Vs. SUNITA KHANDOJI KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the unsuccessful O.P. is directed against the order dated 22.11.2004 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:

(2.) SAID complaint was resisted by the CIDCO. CIDCO denied to have committed any deficiency in service. CIDCO has taken up the defence that amount is forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the CIDCO to return the amount of Rs. 13,000/ - to the complainant together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of surrender of the membership till realization.

(3.) FORUM below allowed the CIDCO to forfeit the amount to the extent of 35%. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, CIDCO has come up in appeal. We heard the learned Advocate Mr. P.B. Kadam for CIDCO. Learned Advocte Mr. Kadam vehemently submitted that the complainant is not permitted to withdraw or cancel the membership and, therefore, the amount deposited by the complainant is forfeited taking into consideration the failure of the complainant to deposit further instalments. In short he wants to submit that the amount has been forfeited as per the Rules and Regulations. In order to support his submissions, he relied upon the proviso of the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975, Chapter VI.