SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1697

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
OM SAI BUILDCON – Appellant
Versus
KIRAN S/O KESHARDAS TAPAR – Respondent
SC/CB2/27/A/20/2019



Petitioner Advocates:ADV.S.L.KOTWAL ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/20/2019 OM SAI BUILDCON PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. SHAKUNTALA AWASTHI OFFICE AT SHREEKA PLAZA 202, SECOND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 3 OPPOSITE KACHORE LAWNS, NAGPUR-440 015,MAHARASHTRA.

OM SAI BUILDCON PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI. NITIN AMRUTLAL VASANI OFFICE AT SHREEKA PLAZA 202, SECOND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 3 OPPOSITE KACHORE LAWNS, NAGPUR-440 015,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus KIRAN S/O KESHARDAS TAPAR PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. 12, GIRIRAJ GANERIWAL LAYOUT, BYE-PASS ROAD, CAMP, AMRAVATI,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/22/2019 OM SAI BUILDCON PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. SHAKUNTALA AWASTHI OFFICE AT SHREEKA PLAZA 202, SECOND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 3 OPPOSITE KACHORE LAWNS, NAGPUR-440 015 ,MAHARASHTRA.

OM SAI BUILDCON PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI. NITIN AMRUTLAL VASANI OFFICE AT SHREEKA PLAZA 202, SECOND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 3 OPPOSITE KACHORE LAWNS, NAGPUR-440 015,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus DR. KANTA GIRISH SIKCHI PRESENT ADDRESS - OCCUPATION MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O. PRABHA RESIDENCY, LADDHA PLOT, BYE-PASS ROAD, CAMP, AMRAVATI,MAHARASHTRA.

GIRISH CHAGANLAL SIKCHI PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. PRABHA RESIDENCY, AMRAVATI,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/21/2019 OM SAI BUILDCON PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. SHAKUNTALA AWASTHI OFFICE AT SHREEKA PLAZA 202, SECOND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 3 OPPOSITE KACHORE LAWNS, NAGPUR-440 015 ,MAHARASHTRA.

OM SAI BUILDCON PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI. NITIN AMRUTLAL VASANI OFFICE AT SHREEKA PLAZA 202, SECOND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 3 OPPOSITE KACHORE LAWNS, NAGPUR-440 015,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus TANVI D/O ASHWIN TAPAR PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. SHIVRAJ APARTMENT, KHAPARDE GARDEN, AMRAVATI-444

602,MAHARASHTRA.

SANDHYA W/O ASHWIN TAPAR PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. AMRAVATI-444 602,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT:

ADV.YASH JAISWAL HOLDING FOR ADV.AURANGABADKAR DATED: 06/03/2026

ORDER

PER MS.SHAILA WANDHARE, HON'BLE MEMBER These appealspreferred by Om Sai BuildconThrough its Partners,original Opposite Partiesbeing aggrieved by the orderpassed on 03/11/2018of the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (for short as “learned District Forum”) in Consumer ComplaintsNo.CC/16/362, CC/16/363 and CC/16/364 respectively, vide Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The parties of these appeals are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better appreciation.

3. Brief facts of these appeals arising out of consumer complaints No.CC/16/362, CC/16/363 and CC/16/364 as under;

The Om Sai Buildcon is a partnership firm, wherein Opposite Party (O.P.) Nos.1 and 2 are its partners and are jointly and severally responsible for the acts and liabilities of the firm. The complainants of consumer complaint No.CC/16/362 agreed to purchase Row House No.10, the complainants of consumer complaint No.CC/16/363 agreed to purchase Row House No.16 and the complainants of consumer complaint No.CC/16/364 agreed to purchase Row House No.17. All forming part of the Surya Nagri Phase-1 scheme situated at MoujaVagdara, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur for a total consideration of Rs.18,51,000/- each. So, the sale agreements were executed between the respective complainants and the O.Ps. during November and December 2013. In pursuance thereof, the complainants of all three consumer complaints paid Rs.3,85,341/- each from time to time towards construction-linked installments. The project was extensively advertised and the O.Ps. assured construction of row houses along with promised amenities and statutory approvals. However, despite lapse of several years, no construction was commenced and the scheme did not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top