STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/CB2/27/CC/52/2017 MR. BIREN NIRANJAN BANWAR .......Complainant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. B/27, OFFICERS COLONY, LALPETH NEAR SHIV M Versus M/S. JHAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. .......Opposite Party(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 10, PARYAWARANNAGAR, SOMAL SHRI. HEMANT SIKANDAR JHAM PRESENT ADDRESS - M/S. JHAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., R/O SHRI. MUKESH HANSRAJ JHAM PRESENT ADDRESS - M/S. JHAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., C/O RS. MAHIMA MUKESH JHAM PRESENT ADDRESS - M/S. JHAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., C/O BEFORE:

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

ADV. KHEOLE FOR THE COMPLAINANT.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

EXPARTE DATED: 07/01/2026 ORDER (Delivered on 07/01//2026)

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

1. The consumer complaint is made by complainant namely Biren Niranjan Banwar, resident of Chandrapur, against opposite party (O.P.) No.1 M/s. Jham Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd, through its Directors Hemand Sikandar Jham (O.P.No.2), Mukesh Hansraj Jham (O.P.No.3) and Mahima Mukesh Jham (O.P.No.4) under Section 12 of the “

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after it is referred to in short as the C.P.Act ”

1986 ).

2. The facts emerge that of from the consumer complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties (O.P.) are builders and service “ ”

providers. The O.P. advertised and offered residential units in the project Kanhaiya City at Mouza Wagdhara, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur. On the basis of such advertisements, brochures and assurances, the complainant entered into an agreement to sale dated 30/11/2010 for purchase of Independent Bungalow No.361, 3-BHK, Plot area 1550 sq. fts., super built up area 1545 sq. fts., Khasra No. 108 &109, P.H. No. 46 for a total consideration of Rs. 21,21,000/-. The O.P. assured that the project was duly sanctioned, free from encumbrances and possession with all amenities would be delivered within 24 to 36 months. So, relying on these representations, the complainant paid Rs.3,22,000/- and performed his part of the contract. The O.P. failed to complete the construction within the agreed period and did not hand over possession or execute the sale deed. They admitted delay and sought to reschedule possession without lawful basis. It later came to the knowledge of the complainant that the project was not duly sanctioned at the relevant time and that material facts were concealed. The O.P. also withheld property documents and attempted to create third-party interests. So, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 04/07/2016. Despite, the O.P. neither replied nor complied. Such acts amount to breach of contract, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 causing financial loss, mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, the complainant seeks for a direction to the O.P. to execute the sale deed and deliver possession as per the agreement. In the alternative, the complainant seeks refund of Rs.3,22,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for mental agony and financial loss along with costs of proceeding.

3. The O.P.Nos.1 and 2 were failed to remain present instead notices were duly served upon to them and thereby, the complaint was proceeded ex-parte against them vide order passed on 25/01/2018. So also, the O.P.Nos.3 and 4 were failed to remain present instead notice were duly served upon to them vide paper publication in the daily newspaper and therefore, the complaint was proceeded ex-parte against vide order passed on 07/10/2019. As such, the O.P.Nos.1 to 4 denied an opportunity to defend the claim.

In pursuance of an exparte order and pursis dated 08/02/2023 placed on record by the complainant, the matter posted for final arguments on 07/02/2024.Today learned advocate for the complainant filed pursi