Tribunals and Commissions(1992) 09 NCDRC CK 0031

MADHUBEN KANTILAL DOSHI SAMIR vs VITRAG CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 25 September 1992 · Citation: 1993 1 CPJ 474

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A.Shah , Leelaben Trivedi J.
RESULT
Appeal partly allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 389 words
1.

THE appellant is the original complainant who had booked a flat from the opponent, organiser of the scheme. THE complainant has paid Rs. 5,000/- towards the booking in 1981. She was not allotted a house in the society and her name was not entered as a member of the society. She wrote a letter in 1984 to allot a house or to refund the amount. In response to that letter the opponent informed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- otherwise she would be allotted house from new flats. THE complainant demanded that loan may be given to her since she is not able to pay the full amount etc. However, after considering the facts and circumstances, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. One of the grounds was that the Consumer Protection Act came into force recently i.e., after the cause of action has arisen and, therefore, also the Forum had no jurisdiction. To our opinion this observation is not correct. THE consumer agency has jurisdiction to hear the complaint even if the cause of action has arisen prior to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act provided the cause of action survives.

2.

AFTER persuation Mr. Lakhani, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent is prepared to pay Rs. 5,000/-, the principal amount deposited in 1981 and Rs. 1,000/- by way of interest and/or cost to show grace. Mr. Kapadia, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant faintly argued and ultimately he accepted that his client will be satis-fied if Rs. 6,000/- is ordered to be paid. Considering the fact that the offer to allot flat was made but the complainant could not accept the same on account of financial handicap and considering also the fact that the Respondent, though succeeded before the District Forum is prepared to pay the aforesaid amount, we think that is in the interest of both the parties and we pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The Respondent (Opponent) will pay Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant which included interest and cost within 5 weeks from today and if the Respondent fails to pay the said amount within 5 weeks the Respondent will be responsible to pay interest @ 18% after 5 weeks till the said amount is realised. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.