(Passed on 4/4/2024 )

Per Mr. Sachin Vinodkumar Jaiswal, Hon’ble Member

1. That the complainant had filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking relief as mentioned in prayer clause of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under.

     That the complainant is the resident of Chandrapur and is widow of Shri Gangadhar Rajeram Khandale. The deceased husband of the complainant had agreed to purchase the plot bearing No. 13 vide agreement to sale dated 4/1/1994 and sale-deed dated 19/01/1955 at mauja Sonurli, Tahsil and District Chandrapur, survey No. 32/1, admeasuring 1722 square feet. The complainant further submits that the husband of the complainant died on 23/08/2019 and therefore the complainant being the legal heirs becomes consumer of OP.

     The deceased husband of the complainant on 4/1/1994 entered into the agreement to sale with the OP Sandip Builders and agreed to purchase the above mentioned plot for total consideration of Rs. 6,500/- to be paid in 21 equated monthly installments. The complainant had paid the installments for the said plot to the OP regularly and therefore the OP registered the sale-deed by their another firm namely Sandip Teak Plantation which is the OP in the present complaint on 19/09/1995 for the consideration amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant further submits that the OP after execution of sale-deed promised the complainant of planting and developing teakwood and hand over possession of the land with plantation after 20 years from the date of registration of sale-deed but the OP did nothing regarding the same and therefore the complainant suffered financial losses and did not get the possession of the plot till today.

3. The complainant submits that the OP  by not keeping his promises regarding the possession of the said plot and indulging in unfair trade practice and also deficient in providing services to the complainant. Therefore the complainant filed the present complaint seeking possession of the plot immediately  and if  the same is not possible in  alternative the ready reckoner rate of the plot along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under mental agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. The Commission admitted the complaint and issue notices to the OP. The OP appeared through their counsel  and filed their detailed reply denying all the allegations made against the OP by the complainant. The OP further submits that possession of the plot had been handed over to the complainant on the date of registration of sale-deed in the year 1995 and therefore the complaint filed in the year 2019,  is barred by limitation and the present Commission had no jurisdiction to try and entertained the Suit for possession as well as there is no agreement between the complainant (deceased husband of the complainant) and the OP for Teak Plantation and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

REASONING

5. Counsel for OP did not turn up after filing their reply in the complaint. We heard counsel for complainant. The complainant submits that even after sale-deed was executed  of the plot, the deceased husband as well as the complainant did not receive the possession of the said plot and therefore were considered constrained to file the present complaint. The complainant prayed for allowing the complaint of the complainant with all the relief sought by complainant in their complaint.
6. Even after the OP remained absent for argument, going through the submission made by the Ops in their written statement and documents filed on record, it is undisputed facts that the claim in question is regarding the open plot and sale-deed was executed for the same on 19/01/1995 as well as there is no agreement on record about the Plantation of teak  wood at the plot of the complainant. Looking into the sale-deed  and prayer of the complainant in complaint, the complainant is seeking possession of the plot by this Commission which is beyond the jurisdiction of the present Commission. As there is no agreement regarding the plantation of teak wood, the same cannot be try and decided by the present Commission. The Commission further finds that the sale-deed was executed in the year 1995 and the complaint came to be filed in 2019 for possession of the plot or refund  the amount as per ready reckoner rate  hopelessly barred by limitation.
7. Looking into the findings in the foregone  paras, the Commission pass following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of order be supplied to all parties, free of cost.