Back
FA/No/773/2014
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing: 28/11/2014
Date of order: 03/11/2015
FIRST APPEAL No : 773 of 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO : 99 OF 2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AHMEDNAGAR.
Parmanand Basantram Khemchandani
R/o.Indira Colony Tarakpur,
Ahmdnagar.
APPELLANT
VERSUS
Dinesh Bhagwandas Chhabriya
R/o.Behind Sant Nirankari Bhavan,
Hardev Nagar Miskin road,
Savedi Ahmednagar.
RESPONDENT
Coram : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma Bora, Hon’ble Member.
Present
: Adv.Shri.A.K.Gugale for the appellant.
Adv.Shri.L.B.Palod for the respondent.
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 03rd Nov. 2015 )
Per. Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
31/10/2014 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum Ahmednagar
dismissing consumer complaint No. 99/2014.
{For the sake of brevity appellant Shri.Parmanand Basantram
Khemchandani is hereinafter referred as the complainant and
respondent Shri.Dinesh Chhabriya as “opponent”. }
FA/No/773/2014
2.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Opponent Shri. Dinesh Bhagwandas Chhabriya who is a
developer and builder had constructed building in land bearing old
survey No. 23/2 and CTS No. 295 of village Nagapur Tq. And Dist.
Ahmednagar. Out of the said building the complainant purchased a
shop from ground floor from the opponent vide registered sale deed
25/04/2005 for a consideration of Rs 80,000/-. Thereafter the
complainant applied with city survey office Ahmednagar for
recording the same shop in his name but he was informed by the
official of the city Survey office that since the shop is not recorded
in the name of the opponent, the same cannot be recorded in his
name. Therefore the complainant asked the opponent to get the
shop recorded in his name so as enable him to get the shop
recorded in his name with city Survey record. But the opponent
avoided to comply his demand. Therefore alleging deficiency in
service on the part of the opponent, complainant has filed
consumer complaint for directing the opponent to get the
constructed building recorded in his name in the city survey record
and thereafter to do the needful for getting recorded the shop in his
name. He has also claimed compensation Rs 7500/- towards
mental agony and Rs 5000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
FA/No/773/2014
3. Despite service of complaint notice the opponent did not
appear and resist the complaint before the Dist. Consumer Forum.
Therefore the complaint came tobe proceeded ex-parte.
4. On hearing Ld. Counsel for the complainant and considering
the evidence on record, the Dist. Consumer Forum held that the
consumer complaint is not maintainable as the complainant failed
to prove that he purchased the shop as per sale deed dated
25/04/2005 as the copy of the sale deed produced by the
complainant was not certified having signature of the Sub Registrar.
In keeping with these findings the Dist. Consumer Forum dismissed
the complaint.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the
complainant came to this Commission in appeal.
6. We heard Ld. Counsel for both side and perused written notes
of arguments submitted by them. We have also perused the copies
of the impugned judgment and order, complaint, notice, sale deed
etc.
7. Adv.Shri.Palod appearing for the opponent fairly conceded
that the complainant purchased the shop from the opponent vide
registered sale deed dated 25/04/2005. However, as the complete
copy of sale deed was not produced before the Dist. Consumer
Forum, the Dist. Consumer Forum has rightly held that the
complainant failed to prove the sale deed etc. Moreover, he has
FA/No/773/2014
submitted that though the complainant purchased the shop from
the opponent and he is entitled to get the shop reco
