National Consumer Disputes RedressalArvind Pundlik Dhamne vs Raghuvir Wamnrao Joshi on 20 May, 2014NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

 

 NEW
DELHI  

 

 REVISION PETITION NO.  3970 OF 2013 

 

(From the order
dated 19.08.2013 in First Appeal No. 1250/2008 of the Maharashtra State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench
at Auranabad) 

 

With 

 

IA/7093/2013 (For Stay) 

 

  

 

Arvind Pundlik Dhamne 

 

R/o C/o Dhamne Ploting
Centre 

 

Prahlad Sankul, 1st Floor, 

 

Osmanpura, Aurangabad Petitioner/Opp.
Party (OP) 

 

Versus 

 

Raghuvir Wamnrao Joshi 

 

R/o Ramkuti Nageshwaradi 

 

Tehsil & Distt. Aurangabad 

 

Maharashtra  
 Respondent/Complainant 

 

 

 

 BEFORE 

 

 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,
PRESIDING MEMBER  

 

 HONBLE DR.
B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER  

 

For the Petitioner 
: Mr.
S.K. Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.  

 

Mahaling Pandarge
& Mr. S.K. Dubey,  

 

Advocates 

 

For the Respondent  :  Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, Advocate  

 

  

 

 PRONOUNCED ON 20th May, 2014  

   

 O R D E RPER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER 

 

  

 

This revision
petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.08.2013
passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, the State Commission) in
Appeal No. 1250 of 2008  Arvind Vs. Ravhuvir by which, while dismissing appeal, order of
District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent
purchased two plots nos. 6 & 7 measuring 341 sq. ft. and 345 sq. ft.,
respectively on 4.7.1985 from OP/petitioner @ Rs.2/- per sq. ft. Complainant paid Rs.
8,000/- on that day and on 21.1.1986, complainant paid Rs.1,000/-
for each plot. OP failed to give
registered sale deed; so, complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 160/2003 for
directions to the OP to give sale deed executed in his favour. District Forum
by the order dated 31.5.2005, disposed of the complaint, as parties remained
absent with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint. Complainant filed fresh complaint for direction
to execute sale deed. OP resisted complaint and denied that he agreed to sell
two plots to the complainant and also denied receipt of amount. It was further
submitted that as earlier complaint was dismissed, second complaint was not
maintainable. It was further submitted
that complaint was barred by limitation and complainant did not fall within the
purview of consumer and matter could have been tried before the Civil Court and
prayed for dismissal of complaint.Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint
and directed OP to execute sale deed of the plots in favour of complainant and
further awarded Rs.100/- per day as penal charges and further awarded
Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by
learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision
petition has been filed.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties
finally at admission stage and perused record.4.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint was
not maintainable for specific performance of the contract and; even though,
complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation, learned District forum committed error in allowing
complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing
appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is
in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that part consideration for
purchase of plots was given on 4.7.1985 and 21.1.1986, but complainant filed
first complaint in 2003 and second complaint in 2005 meaning thereby,
complaints were filed almost after 17 years and 19 years. At the time of contract for purchase of
plots,Consumer Protection Actwas not in force and in such circumstances;
complaint was not maintainable underConsumer Protection Act. Not only this, as complaints were filed after
17 years and 19 years without any application for condonation
of delay underSection 24-Aof the Consumer Protection Act, the complaints were
not entertainable by District Forum and learned State
Commission committed error in dismissing appeal.6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as contract
was purely for sale of plots, only suit for specific purpose in the Civil Court
could have been filed. In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 331 of 2007   Ganeshlal Vs.  Shyam
decided on 26.9.2013 in which it was held that where there is a sale of plot of
land simpliciter, complaint is not covered underConsumer Protection Act. Learned Counsel
for respondent could not bring any citation in support of his contention that
complaint for sale simpliciter of plots was
maintainable before Consumer Forum that too in respect of the contract which
was entertained before coming into force ofConsumer Protection Act. This
Commission in R.P. No. 1728/2010   Vasant  Digamber Joshi Vs.  Suryakalabai
decided on 26.11.2010 in which while following judgment of this Commission
referred in OP No. 12 of 1991   E. Aboo & Anr. Vs.  Tata Engineering
& Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors.decided on 12.09.1991 observed thatConsumer Protection Actdoes not have
retrospective effect and it was further observed that as the cause of action
had arisen in the year 1979 to 1981, and theConsumer Protection Actcame into
force in the year 1986,Consumer Protection Actwas not applicable and
complaint was also barred by limitation.7. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that
both the complaints were time barred and complaint was not maintainable before
theConsumer Protection Actfor sale of land simpliciter,
learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State
Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision
Petition is to be allowed.8. Consequently, Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed and impugned order dated 19.8.2013 passed by learned State Commission
in Appeal No. 1250/08Arvind Vs. Raghuvirand order of District Forum dated 28.7.2008 passed
in Complaint No. 180/2007  Raghuvir Wamnrao Joshi Vs. Arvind Dhamne is set aside and Complaint stands dismissed with
liberty to the complainant to have recourse to the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.Sd/-( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) 

 PRESIDING MEMBER 

 

  

 

  

 

..Sd/-( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) 

 MEMBER 

 

k