The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act provisions to determine the maintainability of a consumer complaint seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property.

ORDER

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member (Oral)- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2008 of District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad allowing consumer complaint No. 180/2007 directing the opponent/appellant to execute registered sale deed of the plots in favour of the complainant/respondent within six weeks, else he will be liable to pay Rs. 100 per day as penal charges. Further alternatively it is directed the appellant/opponent to pay to the complainant compensation Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 3000 towards cost of the proceeding, (for the sake of brevity the appellant hereinafter referred as "opponent" and respondent as the "complainant").

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, opponent Arvind Dhamane is dealing with the business of real estate. Specifically he is dealing in the business of selling plots. On 4.7.1985 the complainant Shri. Raghuvir Joshi purchased two plot bearing No. 6 admeasuring 341 sq. mtr. and plot No. 7 admeasuring 345 sq. mtr. from Gut No. 34 of village Nakshatrawadi, Dist. Aurangabad. The rate of plots was fixed at Rs. 2 per sq. ft. On the same day the complainant paid to the opponent Rs. 4000 for each plot, total Rs. 8000 and agreed to pay remaining consideration within 15 days. Accordingly the opponent received the amount and issued receipt of payment. Thereafter on 21.1.1986 the complainant paid to the opponent Rs. 2000 i.e. Rs. 1000 for each plot and the opponent issued receipt to that effect. The complainant had also agreed to pay betterment charges. However, despite repeated demands of the complainant the opponent failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. Lastly on 27.2.2003 the complainant issued legal notice to the opponent, but the opponent did not comply the notice. Thereafter the complainant had filed consumer complaint bearing No. 160/2003 alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent and claimed the possession of plots and also direction to the opponent to execute sale deed in his favour.

3. During the pendancy of the said complaint the opponent had agreed to execute the sale deed but he avoided to execute it. However, on 31.5.2005 as the complainant remained absent the District Consumer Forum disposed of the complaint granting liberty to file fresh complaint. Thereafter the complainant approached the respondent and requested him to execute the sale deed, but the respondent did not take any heed. Therefore again he issued legal notice dated 17.9.2005 but the opponent did not comply with the notice. Therefore he filed the fresh complaint claiming directions to the opponent to execute the registered sale deed in his favour.

4. The opponent by his written version resisted the complaint on the following among other grounds:

He did not dispute that he is dealing with the business of real estate i.e. selling plots. However, he has denied that he agreed to sell two plots to the complainant and received amount initially Rs. 4000 for each plot and subsequently Rs. 1000 for each plot as alleged by the complainant. He has also denied the receipt of payment. He has submitted that he never agreed to sell any plot to the complainant. He has alternatively contended that the so-called receipts of payment cannot replace the agreement. He has submitted that since earlier complaint was already dismissed, this subsequent complaint is not maintainable. Further it is contended that the complaint is being hopelessly barred by limitation is not maintainable. It is submitted that the consumer complaint is not at all maintainable. According to him it is a question of civil nature and therefore Civil Court has only jurisdiction. In short, according to him complainant is not his consumer. He has denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint with cost and claimed compensatory cost of Rs. 25,000.

5. On hearing both sides the District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad negativated the averments made by the