1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned Order dated 09.06.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 1234/2003 which partly allowed the Appeal of OP while maintaining the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (‘District Forum’) dated 17.04.2003 in CC No. 202/98.

2.      For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.    Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that OP is a Cooperative Housing Society and entered into a sale agreement with him on 25.05.1990. OP had agreed to sell the plot in dispute for Rs.28,334, with the complainant liable to pay the development charges to OP. As per the agreement, he paid Rs. 40,299.90 to OP. However, on 25.09.1997 the OP demanded an additional Rs. 3,667.80, which he contested to be illegal. OP failed to execute the sale deed for Plot No. 46. As a result, he filed a complaint seeking execution of registered sale deed, handing over possession of the plot, refund the excess amount of Rs. 17,623 and pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation.

 4.     In reply before the District forum, OP society contested the complaint and denied being paid Rs.26,138 against which it allegedly issued receipts of Rs.6,138 and Rs.20,000. The OP society acknowledged issuing a receipt for Rs.3,862 but denied that the complainant was entitled to Rs.17,000. The complainant failed to pay the balance amount despite repeated demands, as stated in its reply. The OP contended that the complainant failed to pay necessary expenses for the execution of the sale deed, which prevented the completion of the sale in his favour. Additionally, the OP contended that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter under the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960. OP requested that the complaint be dismissed.

5.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 17.04.2003, partly allowed the complaint with the following order:

“O R D E R

1)  Complaint is partly allowed.

2)  Opposite party is directed to handover the possession of plot No. 46 and execute the Sale-deed in favour of      the complainant.

3)  Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 5, 000/- to the complainant towards mental agony caused due to non-execution of sale-deed since last many years

4)  Opposite party to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the Complainant.”

6.      Being aggrieved by the District Forum Order, OP filed Appeal No. 1234/2003 and the State Commission vide Order dated 09.06.2016 partly allowed the appeal, while maintaining the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following directions: -

“і. The appeal is partly allowed as under,

ii. The impugned order is maintained. In addition to it, it is alternatively directed that if the possession of the plot cannot be hand over to the complainant and its sale deed also cannot be executed by the O.P. in favour of the complainant due to acquisition of the said plot by the Government then the O.P. shall pay to the complainant price of the plot as on date of award i.e. on 24/12/2004 as per Government Ready Reckoner with interest at the rate of 12%p.a. till its realization by the complainant /respondent herein.

iii. No order as to cost in appeal.

7.      Dissatisfied by the Order of the State Commission, OP filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission praying:

(a) quash and set aside, the Order, dated 09-06-2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur, in Appeal No. A/03/1234 and also the Order, dated 17-04-2003, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, in Complaint Case No. cc 971 436 (Old), CC/98/202 (New), in the interest of justice;

(b) stay the effect and operation of the Order, dated 09-06-2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur, in Appeal No. A/03/1234 and also the Order, dated 17-04-2003, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, in Complaint Case No. cc 97/ 436 (Old), CC/98/202 (New), during the pendency of the instant appeal, in the interest of justice;”

8.      The Counsel for the Petitioner/OP reiterated the arguments previously presented before both the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission. He submitted that during the pendency of appeal before the State Commission, the disputed land was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 3, Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Ltd., Nagpur, under the Land Acquisition Act on 24.12.2004. A total compensation of Rs.16,81,564 had been awarded for 8.64 hectares of land by an order dated 23.09.2005, with the compensation share for 8 acres being Rs. 14,94,979.20. He further contended that this fact had not been considered by the State Commission and that the OP society had been ready to deposit the amount of Rs. 30,000 received from the complainant. It was argued that, according to the MIHAN court order, the OP society had not been entitled to any compensation and, therefore, should not be held liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant owed an outstanding amount of Rs. 52,997 for the period from 1990 to 2018, which had not been paid. Further, the legal heirs of the complainant had not applied for a change of membership, nor had they updated their names in the society's records or attended any general meetings. He also submitted that the OP society had already paid Rs.40,351, vide DD No. 007082, dated 17.06.2017, drawn on Maharashtra State Coop. Bank, Nagpur, and Rs.10,000, via DD No. 622057 dated 01.12.2017, amounting to a total of Rs. 50,351, which exceeded the amount due. He contended that the complainant had never requested a refund for the plot price during the pendency of the complaint or appeal. He reiterated his written arguments and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and the quashing of the impugned orders.

9.      The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the said agreement dated 25.05.1990 for the disputed property was executed for a sale consideration of Rs. 28,334 out of which the complainant was liable to pay the following amount so as to execute the Sale Deed:

10.    The learned counsel for the complainant asserted that the complainant had paid the full amount towards the sale consideration to the OP society. To support this claim, he referred to Paragraph 3 of the Affidavit of Mr. Tanaji Dere, Secretary of the Petitioner Society, where it was admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.30,001 towards sale consideration. The OP society had arbitrarily increased the price, compelling the complainant to pay an additional Rs. 4,350 by cheque No. 67634 dated 27.08.1996, and Rs. 5,897 by cheque No. 78775 dated 12.08.1997, under protest, in order to secure registration of the Sale Deed. As a result, the total amount paid by the complainant was approximately Rs. 40,000. He argued that, given the subsequent acquisition of the disputed land by the Authorities, the complainant was entitled to compensation based on the market value. They relied on Raj Kumar Goyal v. Kamal Chaudhary (2016 SCC Online NCDRC 1873) and Imperia Structure Ltd. v. Anil Patni and another (2020) 10 SCC 783, asserting that consumer law was complementary to, and not in derogation of, other laws, and being a welfare legislation, the present complaint was maintainable under consumer law. They, therefore, submitted that the complaint was maintainable and prayed for the dismissal of the present petition.

11.    I have examined the pleading and associated documents placed on record, including the order of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties.

12.    As regards the contentions with respect to the issues of limitation and jurisdiction of consumer fora, both the learned District Forum and State Commission went into detailed deliberations and findings and the sane are appropriate and do not require any interference.

13.    The main issue for determination at this stage is whether OP was deficient in service towards the complainant with respect to the plot in question? If so, what is the liability of OP towards the same? Admittedly, an agreement dated 25.05.1990 for the said plot was entered into for a sale consideration of Rs.28,334. Upon payment of balance fee, registration was to take place. While the complainant claimed to have paid Rs. 30,000, the same was denied by the OP. We have gone through the records and find records showing transactions for Rs.30,000 by the complainant in favour of OP society. As regards validity and truthfulness of the handwritten acknowledgment of the transactions, it is a well settled position in law that revisional jurisdiction under the Act confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings with respect to the transactions. On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the State Commission orders warranting interference at this stage. In this regard, I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022 dated 21.01.2022, has held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited: -

"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

14.    Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

15.    At same time, it is undisputed that the land in question was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 3, Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Ltd., Nagpur, under the Land Acquisition Act on 24.12.2004, during the course of Appeal before the learned State Commission, and certain compensation was paid to the OP society towards the acquisition. Therefore, transfer of the said plot to the complainant is now infeasible and he needs to be compensated. At the same time, the OP society is stated to have deposited Rs 40,351 in District Forum, Nagpur vide cheque dated 17.06.2017. In view of the foregoing and with due regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Stats Commission order dated 09.06.2016 is modified as under:

ORDER

1. The Opposite Party shall pay the complainant the amount constituting the portion of compensation received by the OP Society from the said Special Land Acquisition Officer as per the size of the plot in question; or the amount deposited by the complainant with OP Society as consideration, whichever is higher.
2. In addition, the OP shall also pay simple interest on the amount so determined @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of compensation; or deposit with OP, as the case may be, within one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond one month, the interest applicable shall be @ 12% per annum.  
3. There shall be no order as to costs.

16.    All pending Applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.