STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR First Appeal No. A/18/429 (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/07/2018 in. Complaint Case No. RBT/CC/11/555 of Additional District Forum, Nagpur.) Shalikram S/o. Pandurangji Choudhari, R/o. HUDCO Colony, Near Durga Mata Mandir, Kalmeshwar, Tah. Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. ...........Appellant (s)

Versus

1. Anil S/o. Ramnarayan Kosare, R/o. G-4, 76, MIG Colony, Near Tukdoji Putla, Tukdoji Chowk, Manewada Road, Nagpur.

2. Smt. Jaibai W/o. Vasantrao Bhoge, R/o. Vaishnodevi Nagar, Plot No. 27, Near Balaji Kirana Store, Behind Swami Narayan Mandir, Wathoda, Nagpur.

………. Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI S. KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER PRESENT: Adv. S.C. Deshmukh for the appellant None for the respondents.

Dated : 21 May, 2025 Final Order/Judgment (Delivered on 21/05/2025)

Per Ms. Shaila D. Wandhare, Hon’ble Member.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/original complainant, Shalikram Pandurangji Choudhary, being aggrieved by the order passed on 18/07/2018 in Consumer Complaint No.RBT/CC/11/555 (for short as “impugned order”) by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (for short as “learned District Forum”), vide Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

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 present appeal are that the land situated at Mauja Brahmani, Kalameshwar, District Nagpur, bearing old Survey Nos. 270 and 271 and new Survey Nos. 414 and 415 within P.H. No. 19, was divided into plots and offered for sale by the Opposite Party (O.P.). The complainant agreed to purchase Plot No.37 for a total consideration of ₹3,375/-, out of which ₹1,000/- was paid to the O.P. as earnest money, and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. On 03/12/1981, the O.P. informed the complainant that he was ready to execute the sale deed and accepted a further sum of ₹2,000/-. However, thereafter, the O.P. refused to execute the sale deed on the ground that the layout was under litigation and the sale process was stopped, though he assured that the plot would be sold once the matter was resolved. In the meantime, the complainant entered into another transaction with the O.P. to purchase Plot No.36, for which a sale deed was executed on 24/10/1981. Later, due to non-approval of the layout by the government and changes made by the Town Planning Department, the complainant was allotted Plot No.42/1 in lieu of Plot No.36. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the O.P. was attempting to sell Plot No.37 to third parties, despite having accepted substantial consideration from the complainant and having given clear assurances of sale. The acts and omissions of the O.P. in failing to execute the sale deed for Plot No.37, despite receipt of almost the entire sale consideration and clear representations made to the complainant, amount to gross deficiency in service and constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has therefore approached this Consumer Forum seeking direction against the O.P. for execution of the sale deed in respect of Plot No.37, or in the alternative, for payment of the current market value of the said plot and for delivery of possession of an equivalent plot, along with appropriate compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared and resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and he denied ownership of the lands bearing old Survey Nos.270 and 271 and new Nos.414 and 415, and specifically refuted the claim that the said lands were laid out for sale jointly by him and the complainant. He denied entering into any agreement for sale in respect of Plot No.37 and rejected all related averments made in the compl