STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/17/16 DHANANJAY SHRIRAM KAMBLE PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O GORAKSHAN WARD NEAR AZAD VYAYAM SHALA, WARDHA ,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SANKALP DEVELOPERS PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH DHARMENDRA SHRIRANG WANJARI OFFICE AT 26 1ST FLOOR SANSKRUTIK SANKUL JHASHIRANI SQUARE SITABULDI, NAGPUR R/O OPP. YASH BEAR BAR, NEAR AATA CHAKKI JAWAL MAIN ROAD JAGNADE CHOWK NANDANVAN, NAGPUR ,MAHARASHTRA.

SMT. VANDANA RAJU TARARE PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O PLOT NO. 23G, NEAR VITHODBA DANT MANJAN COMPANY, BEHIND PETROL PUMP, VAISHALINAGAR, NAGPUR ,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

ADV. BHUSHAN MOHATA (Advocate)

DATED: 29/07/2025

ORDER

(Delivered on 29/07/2025)

PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON’BLE MEMBER.

1. The appellant namely Dhananjay Shriram Kamble has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 challenging the order passed on 25/11/2016 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/2014/118 (hereinafter it is referred to in short as “impugned order”) of the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (hereinafter it is referred to in short as “learned Additional District Forum”) by which the complaint filed by appellant being complainant came to be dismissed.

The parties of the appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better appreciation.

2. The facts that emerge from the original complaint are that the complainant's father namely Shriram Hiraman Kamble had entered into an agreement on 15/06/2008 with the Opposite Party (O.P.) Sankalp Developers for purchase of Plot No.03, admeasuring 3435 sq.ft., situated at Mouza Shirul, Nagpur for a total consideration of 12,02,250/-, out of which 1,05,000/- was paid in cash and the balance was to be paid in instalments. The complainant had, on behalf of his father, paid a total sum of 7,50,000/- to the O.P., who issued receipts acknowledging the payment, though some receipts erroneously referred to Plot No.7 instead of Plot No.3, which was agreed to be corrected at the time of execution of the sale deed. The O.P. failed to obtain N.A.T.P. sanction, did not carry out demarcation of the plot and did not deliver possession as agreed. The O.P. later issued four cheques to refund the paid amount, out of which two cheques were dishonoured and no refund was made thereafter. Despite issuance of legal notice, the O.P. failed to respond. Therefore, the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.118/2014 before the learned District Forum seeking refund of the paid amount with interest and compensation for mental harassment and deficiency in service.

3. The O.P. resisted the claim before the learned Additional District Consumer Forum and contended that the complaint is barred by limitation as it was filed in July 2014 based on a transaction dated 15/06/2008, after an inordinate delay of nearly six years and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as time-barred. The O.P. also contended that the complainant has suppressed material facts and misled by not disclosing the actual legal position and thereby approaching the Forum with unclean hands. It was also contended that the complainant claimed to have entered into the agreement at the instance of one Bhagwan Bhagat, an agent of the O.P., but failed to implead him as a necessary party to the complaint and therefore, the complaint suffers from non-joinder of a proper party and is liable to be dismissed. The O.P. also denied any transaction with the complainant and submitted that the complaint was filed without any authority or valid title, and in absence of any direct dealing, the claim deserves to be dismissed. It is further contended that the agreement is not a valid and binding document, as it does not bear signatures of both parties and proper witnesses and