SUPENATH RAMAJI PATIL Vs. SURENDRAKUMAR MAGHRAJ SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The key point of discussion in this case is whether the complainant, Sh. Supenath Ramaji Patil is a consumer? Shri Surendra kumar Meghraj Sethi, the OP in this case transacts the business of selling plots. The complainant Supenath Patil is a practising Advocate, Both the parties entered into an agreement to sell 36 plots in favour of the complainant which are situated at Moja Ghuggus, Tehsil Ghoghas, District Chandrapur. The consideration for the sale of the plots was settled at Rs. 21,13,055. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 to the OP on 20.1.2006. It was agreed that the balance consideration was to be paid before 20.8.2006. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs. 1 lakh on 4.4.2006, Rs. 2,50,000 on 12.4.2006 and Rs. 25,000 on 6.6.2006, total being Rs. 8,25,000. The appellant executed sale deed of 10 plots worth Rs. 2,03,000 in favour of the complainants and others. Thereafter, the OP cancelled the agreement. The grouse of the complainant is that he has sustained a loss of Rs. 6,21,400. The complainant issued notice to the opposite party but it was returned back. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The main defence set up by the OP was that the appellant is not a consumer, however, the District Forum partly allowed the claim and directed the OP to repay the amount of Rs. 1,31,674 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. with effect from 6.6.2006 within 30 days. The appeal was preferred before the State Commission which was accepted and the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) We have heard the respondent in person. He has filed written submissions. It was argued that the State Commission assumed that the applicant is not a consumer. This point was not raised in written statement. The complainant did not purchase the plot for commercial purpose. The State Commission wrongly assumed that the applicant has sold 10 plots.

(3.) All these arguments are bereft of merit. The written statement itself mentions: