STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/21/71 (Arising against the order dated 10/11/2020 passed by the D.F.Thane in RBT/CC/19/220)

M/s.Pushkraj Builders & Developers through its Proprietor Mr.Ravindra Prabhakar Zunjarrao R/at-Narhari Sadan Gokulpada, Agra Road Near Namaskar Mandal Kalyan West, District Thane ...... Appellant/org.OP Versus Mr.Vijay Daulat Mali R/at Nilam Bhavan ………Respondent/org.complainant Room no.2, Joshi Baug Kalyan West, Taluka Kalyan District Thane BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate Dushyant Pagare for appellant Advocate Rutuja Phegade a/w. Advocate M.A.Bhatkar for respondent FINAL ORDER (Dt.18/03/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/org.OP against the impugned order dated 10/11/2020 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Thane in consumer complaint no.RBT/CC/19/220 in CC/13/481.

BRIEF FACTS:-

2. The original complainant/respondent herein filed the consumer complaint no.CC/13/481 against the present appellant for praying the directions to grant possession of the alleged shop and for the compensation for mental harassment. The Ld.District Consumer Commission, Thane allowed the complaint by passing an order on 26/06/2015. Being aggrieved with the said order, both the parties preferred appeals bearing nos.A/15/846 and A/15/891 respectively. This Commission was pleased to remand back the consumer complaint to the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Thane for fresh hearing and thereafter the matter was heard and decided in favour of the complainant by allowing the consumer complaint no.RBT/CC/19/220 with a direction to the present appellant to hand over the possession of the alleged shop after receiving the balance consideration amount. Further directed present appellant to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.4 lakhs from the date of payment till the actual possession of the said shop given to the complainant towards compensation and also awarded cost.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

3. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the cause of action to file the consumer complaint arose immediately after the expiry of 18 months as agreed by the appellant to hand over the possession of the shop by way of Agreement. The said complaint was not filed within two years thereafter. Therefore, the original consumer complaint is completely barred by limitation as per section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4. It is further contended that the original complainant has purchased the alleged shop for the ‘commercial purpose’. Therefore, the complainant/respondent herein is not coming under the purview of definition of ‘consumer’ as respondent/complainant is serving with Laxman Deoram Sonawane College, Kalyan on permanent basis. The said aspect has not been considered by the Ld.District Consumer Commission as well as termination clause no.7 of the Agreement is also not been considered and the respondent has not challenged the notice of termination of the contract. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission is required to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, the present appeal is filed by the appellant praying that the impugned order may be set aside and the original complaint may be dismissed with cost.

5. The present appeal was admitted and the notice was issued to the respondent.

The respondent appeared and filed their written notes of argument. After hearing both the parties argument and considering the written notes of arguments filed by them, as well as perused the appeal memo and the documents annexed with the appeal memo, we pass the following order on the law and reasoning discussed herein below :-

LAW & REASONING :

6. We have gone through the Agreement executed between the parties. It is not disputed that the original complainant has booked the alleged shop with the respondent and the respondent was supposed to give possession of t