RENUKA DEVELOPERS, YAVATMAL Vs. SANJAY SHARAVAN GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer, namely, M/s Renuka Developers, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order, dated 01.11.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short "the State Commission"). The impugned order has been passed by the State Commission in Miscellaneous Applications No. MA/17/2 and MA/17/3, preferred by the Petitioner, seeking condonation of delay of 19 months and 10 months in filing Appeals, under Section 15 and 27A respectively of the Act. However, by means of this Revision Petition, the impugned order is being challenged insofar as it relates to Miscellaneous Application No. MA/17/2, which, as noted above, had been filed by the Petitioner along with its Appeal under Section 15 of the Act. By the impugned order, the State Commission has rejected the said Miscellaneous Application, and, hence dismissed the said Appeal as barred by limitation.

(2.) The aforesaid Application and the Appeal had been filed against the order 01.10.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yavatmal (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. CC/248/2013. By the said order, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to get the plot, sold to the Complainant, encumbrance free and provide civic amenities, like drainage, road etc., in the layout plan and pay to the Complainant Rs. 15,000/- as damages for his not being able to construct the house on the said plot; Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards physical and mental agony; and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs. The said order was directed to be complied with within a period of 30 days, failing which the Petitioner was required to pay the aforesaid amounts with interest @ 12% from the date of purchase of the plot, i.e. 18.06.2009, till realization.

(3.) Vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2009, the Complainant, a labourer, had purchased a plot, admeasuring 75 sq. mt., from the Petitioner against a total sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. As per the sale deed, the aforesaid civic amenities were to be provided by the Petitioner in the layout, but the same were not provided. Further, after execution of the sale deed, when the Complainant went to Tehsil Office, Yavatmal on 24.07.2009 for getting recorded his name in the Property Card, he learnt that the said plot was encumbered, inasmuch as there was a charge of Yavatmal Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd. over the said plot. According to the Complainant, at the time of execution of the sale deed, he was not informed about the same and even the Property Card, attached with the sale deed, did not have any endorsement to that effect. In the absence of the said amenities and because of the fact that the plot was encumbered, the Complainant could not obtain financial assistance from the Bank and construct his house nor was his name recorded in the Property Card. Despite several assurances, the Petitioner failed to do the needful. On 16.07.2013 the Complainant requested the Superintendent Land Record Keeper, Yavatmal for issuing Property Card and on receipt of the same, he found that still the Petitioner had not taken any action in the matter to get the plot in question encumbrance free. In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.