NUTAN KUMAR VASANTKUMAR BETHARIA Vs. KAMLAPRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby the petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated 21.02.2015 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur (in short, the State Commission) in First Appeal No. A/10/42 (Kamalprasad Singh Bahadur Singh Vs. J.B. Construction & Anr.). By way of the impugned order, First Appeal No. A/10/42 was allowed and the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (in short, the District Forum) in Complaint No. 218/2009 was set aside and complaint was partly allowed.

(2.) Succinctly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent No.2/opposite party No.1 was a builder and developer of the land. Opposite party No. 2/petitioner herein was the land owner. An agreement of development dated 05.12.1985 was entered into between the parties. As per the Agreement, the opposite party No.2/petitioner herein was entitled to get 14 shops on the ground floor and the residential flats which were to be constructed on the upper floors were to be sold by opposite party No.1 to prospective purchasers after accepting consideration thereof and the said builder/developer and land owner would execute the sale deed in respect of those flats in favour of the prospective purchasers. The complainant, namely Mr. Kamalaprasad Singh entered into agreement of sale with opposite party No.1/respondent No.2 herein to purchase flat for Rs. 2,90,000/-. It was the case of the complainant that despite payment of the entire sale consideration of the flat and despite delivery of possession, the sale deed in respect to the flat has not been executed in favour of the complainant. Aggrieved, consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.

(3.) Upon service of notice, written statements were filed by the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 contended that previous complaint bearing Consumer Complaint No. 276 of 1997 filed by the Association of flat owners was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 02.12.1999 and therefore the present complaint was not maintainable. It was further contended that the possession has been already handed over, however, opposite party No.2/landowner was avoiding to execute the sale deed. It was submitted that opposite party No.2/landowner has filed a civil suit and the matter is subjudice. On these grounds, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed against it. Opposite party No.2 contested the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that there is no relationship of service provider and consumer between him and the complainant. It was submitted that a public notice was published in the newspaper on 22.09.1989 informing the general public that Power of Attorney issued in favour of opposite party No.1/builder has been revoked and none should make any transaction with opposite party No.1. It was further submitted that since a civil suit is pending, the present complaint may be dismissed.