Maharashtra

Additional DCF, Nagpur

MA/24/4

HOLU S/O RAMCHARAN PARTETI - Complainant(s)

Versus

S B BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PROP SACHIN SHALIKRAM BHOYAR - Opp.Party(s)

ADV HEMRAJ SAKHARE

29 May 2024

ORDER

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NAGPUR
New Administrative Building No.-1
3rd Floor, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001
Ph.0712-2546884
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/24/4
( Date of Filing : 06 Mar 2024 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/24/87
 
1. HOLU S/O RAMCHARAN PARTETI
DAI PRASAD LAYOUT AT PRESENT PLOT NO 51-A WARD NO 1 DURGA SOCIETY NEW YERKHEDA KAMPTEE TAH KAMPTEE DIST NAGPUR
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. S B BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PROP SACHIN SHALIKRAM BHOYAR
HOUSE NO 66 KALAMNA ROAD NEW YERKHEDA KAMPTEE TAH KAMPTEE DIST NAGPUR
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SATISH A. SAPRE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. SMITA N. CHANDEKAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 May 2024
Final Order / Judgement

As per Ms. Smita Chandekar,  Hon’ble Member.

1.        Read the application and documents filed by applicant. Heard counsel for applicant. Applicant has filed the present application seeking the condonation of delay in filing his complaint against Non-applicant.

 

2.        It is stated by applicant that he has booked the Duplex at Kush Apartment owned by NA/OP situated at Mouza Ranala , P H No. 18, Kh.No. 32/2. Gram Panchayat Ranala, Tah. Kampthee, Distt. Nagpur on 07/11/2015. Applicant has paid Rs.10,00,000/-  till 30/03/2019 out of total consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-. The agreement was executed between applicant and NA/non-applicant on 30/03/2019 to that effect. On 22/04/2019 applicant again paid Rs.50,000/- to the NA/non-applicant and the agreement got notarized. NA agreed to receive balance Rs,6,50,000/- at the time of registration of sale deed and physical possession of Duplex. It is the contention of applicant that NA has not  executed the registered sale deed and not given him the actual physical possession of the said duplex. During pandemic period applicant could not taken any steps. However, applicant issued legal notice through advocate on 02/12/2023 and 18/01/2024. NA neither comply nor replied the notices received by him. For the alleged deficiency of non execution of sale deed and not giving possession applicant wants to file complainant against NA U/s 35 (1) of C P Act. 2019.

 

3.        That Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission passed the order in several matters wherein the sale deed has not  been executed by OP then in such matter the issue of delay cannot be applied. Accordingly, issue of delay does not arise in the present matter too. Also the period of pandemic has been excluded by Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore in our opinion the cause of action of the present complaint  is continuous. Hence, the present MA is allowed and the complaint of the complainant is admitted.  

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SATISH A. SAPRE]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. SMITA N. CHANDEKAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.