CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2007 Date of filing : 03/05/2007

@ MISC. APPL. NO. 719 OF 2007 Date of order : 14/05/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 266 OF 2003

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE



Mr.Vyankatrao Shankarrao Jadhav

Prop. of M/s.Neelkamal Developers

G-1&2, Pradhan Sagar, R.B. Kadam Marg,

Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086. … Appellant/org. O.P.

V/s.

Sachin Vishambar Mane

Flat No.6, 2nd floor, Prayag Plaza,

Near Mal Plaza, Karjat Road,

Kulgaon-Badlapur, Badlapur (E),

Tal. Ambernath, Dist. Thane (W). … Respondent/org. complainant


Corum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble President
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

Present: Mr.S.A. Bhagwat, Adv. h/f. Ms.Anjali Risbud, Adv. for the appellant.

Respondent Sachin Mane in person.

- : ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 23/03/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.266/2003 Sachin V. Mane V/s. V.S. Jadhav by District Consumer Forum Thane (in short ‘Forum below’).

Respondent/org. complainant Sachin V. Mane had purchased a flat in a building known as ‘Prayag Plaza’ constructed by appellant/org. O.P.-Mr.V.S. Jadhav for consideration of Rs.3,76,000/-. He had received possession thereof on 01/04/2002. He filed complaint about deficiency in service for not providing separate tap connection in his flat and a separate electric meter. Upholding this contention only for not providing separate tap connection, Forum below awarded compensation of Rs.1 Lakh along with cost of Rs.500/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by O.P.

We heard Mr.S.V. Bhagwat, Learned Counsel for appellant appearing along with and respondent/org. complainant Sachin Mane in person. Perused the record of the appeal as well as original complaint record called from Forum below.

In the instant case as revealed from the record, it is not the case that no water was at all supplied to the complainant before water connection was taken. Water supply was made through Tanker. Besides that there is one Borewell provided for use of water other than drinking purpose as specifically contended in the written statement by O.P. in Para 12. This fact is not denied in rejoinder filed by the complainant. Later on, O.P. has taken a separate water connection provided to the building. If we look to Annexure-C of Agreement dated 07/03/2002, whereby the complainant had purchased flat, clause 8 thereof stipulates condition for water supply and it reads – “Water Supply:- Tap water will be provided in Kitchen, Bath, W.C. and Wash Basin with indirect connection i.e. from overhead water tank”. Thus, it could be seen that a separate water tap connection for the complainant was not agreed upon. What is agreed upon at the most is a municipal water connection to the overhead water tank and through which complainant would receive water. This condition is also complied with by O.P. Under the circumstances, there is hardly any deficiency in service on the part of O.P. on this count. Learned Forum below erred in holding deficiency in service on this count by not properly considering the evidence and pleadings of the parties as well as documents. Thus, we cannot subscribe to the impugned order/award and holding accordingly, we pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order/award dated 23/03/2007 is set aside and in turn complaint stands dismissed.

2. In the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

3. Misc. Appl. No.719/2007, which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous.

4. Original Record & Proceeding be sent back to the Forum below.

5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.







(S.R. Khanzode) (B.B. Vagyani)

Judicial Member President