##PAGE1##

1 A/104/2022

Date of filing :14.02.2022 Date of order :23.03.2026

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 104 OF 2022 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 349 OF 2019

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD

Dinesh Shyamsunder Jagiasi, ...APPELLANT R/o Plot No.84, Sindhi Colony, (Adv.S.H.Jagiasi)

Jalna Road, Aurangabad.

VERSUS

M/s Alka Constructions, ...RESPONDENT Through its Proprietor (Adv.R.S.Bihani)

Shri Abhay Ashok Kawde, 1st floor, Simant Mangal Karyalaya,

Opp.Zilla Parishad, Aurangpura, Aurangabad.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 23/03/2026)

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad (the ‘District

Commission’ for short) in C.C.No.349/2019.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in 2012 the appellant had booked Flat No.G-12-13 in a building ‘Vigneshwar- B’ in the project ‘Ashtavinayak Phase-II’, which was being

2 A/104/2022

developed by the respondent. The agreed consideration was Rs.9 lacs. The agreement to sale between in the parties came to be executed and registered on 4.12.2012. The possession of the flats was to be given on 15/03/2014. The appellant claimed to have noticed the fact that even though the agreement to sale has been registered and executed, but there was no progress in the construction of the building and the flats. In 2016 it came to the knowledge of the appellant that, the project undertaken by the respondent was illegal. One Civil Suit bearing number 728/2016 is also filed by the respondent with regard to that building and project. The Civil Court passed the injunction order. The respondent stated that, because of that injunction order it was not possible for him to execute the final sale deed. As such the appellant requested the respondent to refund sum of Rs.8,43,250/-, which he claimed to have paid. The said a request is not favourably considered by the respondent. Therefore he filed above referred consumer complaint in the District Commission,

in which the impugned judgment has been passed.

3. It was the stand of the respondent before the District Commission that, because of the political issues he was not able to complete the construction of the project. He filed Civil Suit in which the Civil Court passed the injunction order. By virtue of that order he is unable to hand over the possession to the appellant. In fact he was ever ready to execute the final sale deed and hand over the possession to the appellant, but he did not pay him sum of Rs.11,000/- for the electricity connection. The appellant never paid him the entire consideration of Rs. 9 lacs

3 A/104/2022

and has paid only Rs.7,20,000/-. He prayed the District Commission to dismiss the complaint filed by the appellant with

costs.

4. The District Commission after evaluating the evidence before it and on hearing counsels of sides came to a conclusion that, the respondent is liable for deficiency in service as he has not handed over the possession of the disputed flats to the appellant and also not executed final sale deed. However, the District Commission recorded the finding that, the appellant has paid only Rs.7,20,000/- out of the agreed consideration of Rs.9 lacs to the respondent. As such, the District Commission directed the respondent to pay to the appellant sum of Rs.7,20,000/-

along with Rs.10,000/- for the mental and physical harassment.

5. Being agreed by the above findings the appellant has come before us with a prayer to modify the impugned judgment.

6. We heard learned Adv.Jagiasi for the appellant . Despite of several opportunities learned Adv.Bihani not filed written notes of

argument. He also remained absent for the oral argument.

7. Adv.Jagiasi by referring to the copies of the pass books of the appellant point