STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH, KOLHAPUR Revision Petition No. RP/21/90 (Arisen from the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratnagiri dated 13/10/2021 in CC No. 16/2019)

Shri Pravin Vijay Oswal, R/o Teli Aali, Tal. Ratnagiri, Dist. Ratnagiri …. PETITIONER Vs.

1) Shri Sunil Ghevarchand

1/A, Ravivar Peth, Karad, Tal. Karad Dist. Satara

2) Shri Mahesh Govind Navathe Prop. Navathe Infrastructure & Consultants, R/o Near Damale High School, Maruti Mandir, Tal. Ratnagiri, Dist. Ratnagiri ..... RESPONDENTS BEFORE :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P.Tavade, President Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member Present : Adv. R.R. Wayangankar for the Petitioner Adv. Sandeep Jadhav for the Respondent No.1 Adv. Siddhi Bhosale for the Respondent No.2 ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member

1. The original opponent No.2 has preferred this Revision petition against the order dated 13/10/2021 passed in consumer complaint No.

16/2019 by the District Commission, Ratnagiri. The Revision petitioner is the original opponent No.2 in the original complaint. The Respondent No.1 is the original complainant and Respondent No.2 is the original Opponent No. 1 in the original complaint. The present petitioner has filed this revision as on 1^st April 2021 and prayed that the complainant may be directed to file his bank statements and income tax returns pertaining to the alleged payments made by him to the Respondent No.2. If these documents are filed on record, then it will be clear that the intention of transaction is commercial in nature and the agreement itself is false. On the same day, the learned District commission was pleased to pass the order calling the say of the Opponent on the said application and adjourned the matter to 15/04/2021. On 15/04/2021, the complainant was absent and matter was again adjourned for say. Thereafter, the complainant remained continuously absent and the matter was adjourned for want of reply. After filing the reply, the matter was kept for argument as on 13^th October 2021. On that day, the Adv. for the petitioner was present before the learned District Commission from 11.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. However, the District commission, without giving proper opportunity, rejected the application stating that more opportunity was given and petitioner was not present on that day and in the alleged agreement, the payment of money is mentioned and application need not be considered. The learned District Commission, without considering the written statement, evidence and without giving proper opportunity, without considering facts and law, rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, being aggrieved with the said order, the present revision petitioner has filed this revision petition before this Commission.

2. The Revision petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 13/10/2021 passed by the learned District Commission, Ratnagiri on Exh. 39 in Consumer Complaint No. 16/19 be quashed and set aside and application below Exh.39 in the said complaint may be allowed.

3. After admitting the revision petition, the notices were sent to the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Respondent No.1 appeared and filed his say. The Respondent No.2 has filed pursis wherein it is contended that whatever order passed by the learned District Commission below Exh.39 need not be interfered.

4. Heard both the counsels. Perused the revision petition. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the transaction between the original complainant and the Respondent No.2 is of commercial nature. The Respondent No.2 has not completed the construction work and not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant. There is a collusion between the original complainant and the Respondent No.2 as well as the transaction involved in the original complaint is of commercial nature. Therefore, the original consumer complaint is not maintainable in law. Hence, the revision petitioner, who is original opponent No.