STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR Appeal No. A/17/412 (Arisen out of Order Dated 04/03/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No.

CC/14/507 of District Nagpur)

Kishor Nathaji Chiwande, R/o. Cement Nagar, Chandrapur-442502, Tah & Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.). ...........Appellant (s)

Versus M/s. The Maratha Real Estate, “Sarkar” 2 ^nd Floor, 1 Hanuman Nagar, Medical College Square , Opposite Petrol Pump, Nagpur, Tah & Distt. Nagpur (M.S.).

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI S. KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER PRESENT: Adv. Hajare for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Dated : 09 Jan. 2025 Final Order / Judgement (Delivered on 09/01/2025)

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

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/original complainant, Kishor Nathaji Chiwande, being aggrieved by the order passed on 04/03/2017 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/14/507 (for short as “impugned order”) by the learned 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 complainant is a close friend of Shri Mahendra Singh Rana, the original agreed purchaser of plots Nos.1, 46, 47 and 48 admeasuring 8079.25 sq. ft. situated at Khasra No.7/1, Mauza Champa, Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur within the ‘Heaven City-1’ layout. These plots were agreed to be purchased by Shri Rana on 21.09.2009 for Rs.9,88,500/- and paid Rs.7,45,000/- in cash leaving Rs.2,43,000/- payable at the time of sale deed registration. The opposite party, M/s. The Maratha Real Estate Company had agreed to develop the layout and hand over possession of the said plots upon completion. However, despite repeated requests, the opposite party failed to fulfill its obligations including executing the sale deed. Shri Rana who is residing in Muscat, Oman found it difficult to pursue the matter personally and assigned his interest in the plots to the complainant. The assignment was made to protect Shri Rana's interest and the complainant entered into an Agreement of Sale with the opposite party on 20.05.2014. The opposite party acknowledged receipt of Rs.7,45,000/- and agreed to transfer possession upon payment of the remaining Rs.2,43,000/- during registration. Despite repeated requests and legal notices dated 01.06.2014 and 01.08.2014, the opposite party failed to develop the layout, construct roads, execute the sale deed or deliver possession of the property. The complainant is ready and willing to pay the balance but alleges deficiency in service as the sale deed remains unexecuted. The complaint filed before the learned District Forum, Nagpur seeks directions for the opposite party to execute the sale deed, deliver possession of the plots and compensate for mental agony and expenses incurred.

3. O.P. resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and denied the contention that the complainant was not their customer but acted solely as an agent and thereby disqualifying the dispute from the learned District Forum’s jurisdiction. The O.P. contended that the complainant’s claims relied on receipts issued by Shri Mahendra Singh Rana whose transactions were never formalized or recognized by the O.P. and whose agreement was terminated due to non- payment. The O.P. emphasized that the complainant being an agent cannot claim independent rights or obligations under the terminated agreement. They further contended that the allegations including the claim for four plots arising from a commercial transaction were baseless, misleading and involved concealment of material information such as prior notices repudiating the agreement. They further contended that there was no consumer relationship between the compl