STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR.

Complaint Case No. CC/19/124 Dr. Shyam S/o. Babaraoji Bawage, R/o. 14, Shivsadan, Gandharv Nagari, Bitco Factory Road, Nasik Road, Nasik-422101. ...........Complainant(s)

Versus Shri Rajiv Vasantrao Mahakalkar, R/o. Vasant Vina Apartment , 3^rd Floor, Murarka Layout, Behind New Arts College, Wardha (M.S.) 442 001. ……….Opposite party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI S. KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER PRESENT:

Adv. S.K. Paunikar for the complainants.

None for the O.P.

Dated : 15 May, 2025 Final Order / Judgement (Delivered on 15/05/2025)

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

1. The present complaint is made by the complainant namely Dr.Shyam Babaraoji Bawage who is a resident of Nagpur but doctor by profession private practicing at Nashik Road Nashik against O.P. under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after it is referred to in short as “the C.P.Act 1986”).

2. The case unfolding from the consumer complaint of the complainant made concerning the incident in question is as under;

The complainant is a medical practitioner originally from Nagpur and currently residing at Nasik has entered into three registered agreements to sale with the O.P., a builder and developer for purchase of three residential flats in the housing scheme titled “Riddhi Siddhi Residency” located at Mouza Besa, Nagpur. Despite paying the full sale consideration of ₹24,00,000/- through his hard-earned savings with the legitimate expectation of timely possession and execution of sale deeds, the O.P. failed to deliver vacant possession and execute the necessary sale documents and thereby, breached the terms of the registered agreements. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 21/11/2019 demanding execution of sale deeds and physical possession which was duly served on 26/11/2019, but the O.P. failed to comply with. The prolonged non- compliance, wilful avoidance and continued withholding of both the property and complainant’s funds without any justification or interest payment for over a decade constitutes a gross deficiency in service and amounts to unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant, therefore, prays before this Commission to direct the O.P. to either execute the sale deeds and deliver possession of all three flats, or alternatively, refund the amount as per the prevailing Ready Reckoner rates with 18% interest per annum, and further seeks compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for the harassment suffered, along with costs.

3. It is seen from the record that the Opponent Party was duly served with notice of the complaint. However, he failed to appear and did not file his written statement within the time prescribed under law. Therefore, by order dated 22/11/2022, directed that the matter proceeded without the written version of the Opponent Party.

4. In support of his claim, the complainant filed his affidavit of evidence on 07/02/2023. The Opponent Party did not file any affidavit in response. Hence, the matter was taken up for final hearing in the absence of any evidence from the Opponent Party.

5. The complainant also submitted written notes of arguments on record. However, the Opponent Party again failed to submit his written notes of arguments. We have heard the oral submissions of the learned Advocate for the complainant. The Opponent Party did not advance any oral arguments. Considering that the matter is old and pending for a long time, we have carefully perused the entire material on record and proceeded to decide the case on the basis of available pleadings, evidence and arguments submitted.

6. On the basis of the material on record, the following points arise for our determination and we have accordingly recorded our findings against each point as under:

REASONS AS TO POINT NO.1:

7. The record clearly shows that the complainant a doctor by profession entered into three separate registered agreements