The amount number having been refunded to him, he moved the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of the State of Maharashtra under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by filing a companyplaint being Consumer Complaint No.388 of 2001.
The appellant Society carried the matter in appeal before the National Disputes Redressal Commission pointing out that it was respondent No.2 who was responsible for number payment of the amount because of the mismanagement on his part of the Societys funds.
The appeal was ultimately heard and disposed of by the National Commission by its order dated 16.5.2008 and under that order, the appellant Society and respondent No.2 were directed to pay to respondent No.1, the amount as awarded by the State Commission along with interest at 9 per annum.
One Mr. Vitthal G. Kapuskar was the Chief Promoter of the appellant Society which has companystructed a housing companyplex at Kanjur Marg East in Mumbai.
Thereafter, another Managing Committee has taken over which has presently filed this appeal.
The appellant Pariwar Co operative Housing Society Ltd. Society for short has challenged the order dated 16.5.2008 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.69 of 2006 by filing this appeal.
Respondent No.1 was one of the members of the Society.
The National Commission had passed an interim order on 23.2.2006 directing the appellant Society to deposit the entire amount payable to the second respondent, in the State Commission out of which 50 amount was allowed to be withdrawn by respondent No.1 on furnishing personal bonds.
Leave granted.
Accordingly, respondent No.1 has withdrawn that amount.
Heard Mr. Satyajit Desai, learned companynsel in support of this appeal, Mr. Santosh Paul, learned companynsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned companynsel appearing for the second respondent.
An order came to be passed in that proceeding on 17.6.2005 holding the appellant Society responsible for neither giving him possession of any apartment number returning the amount that was payable to him.
Therefore, an order was passed against the appellant Society as well as against respondent No.2.
