(Delivered on  31/03/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.

1.         Appellant/original complainant – Mr. Pancham Pundlik Sheware has preferred the   present appeal   feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09/12/2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. 702/2010, by which the complaint came to be dismissed.

2.         Short facts leading to filing of the present complaint may be narrated as under,

            Complainant – Mr. Pancham Pundlik Sheware claims to be resident of  Model Town,  Indora, Nagpur. Complainant has claimed that he was the member of Shri Ganesh Cooperative Housing Society since last 30 years. Complainant had agreed to purchase one plot admeasuring 3,000/- Sq. fts. in khasra No.  5-6/9, Mouza Khamala for consideration of Rs. 27,000/-. Out of the total amount complainant had paid Rs. 3015/- on 28/05/1981, Rs. 2,000/- on 10/09/1983 in cash and O.P. was issued receipt. The complainant had also paid remaining amount but the O.P. had not given  any receipt for the same and also did not execute  the sale deed. On 04/08/2008 the O.P. asked the complainant to visit the spot and select the plot and carry out valuation but thereafter no steps were taken by the O.P.  The O.P. also did not execute any sale deed. Complainant has alleged that he never got the plot though  he was the member of Shri Ganesh Cooperative Housing Society and said society  also did not  show plot and  avoid to show the same  to despite  having  received  huge amount from the complainant.  The complainant therefore suffered huge monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Complainant has alleged  that  the O.P. namely Shri Ganesh Cooperative Housing  Society  has committed  deficiency  in  service  and so  he lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.         The O.P. namely Shri Ganesh Cooperative Housing Society appeared and resisted the complaint by filing  written version  and denied  all the allegations made in the complaint. At the outset the O.P. has contended that the complaint was barred by limitation.  The O.P. has also contended that although the land was purchased at Mouza Khamala it was noticed that there was encroachment   of 10 plots and the matter is pending in the Civil Court. The O.P. has denied that  any plot admeasuring 3,000 Sq. Fts. was  allotted  to the complainant  or that  the O.P. has  entered into  any  agreement  regarding  the same.  On the contrary  the O.P. had issued  a letter to complainant  expressing  willingness  to refund the amount  paid  by the complainant but the complainant  himself  did not  approach the O.P.  For the forgoing reasons, the complaint was untenable in law and deserves to be dismissed with cost.

4.         The learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur then went through the documentary evidence adduced on record. The learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur also went through the evidence led by the O. P. The learned Commission also went through the written notes of arguments.  After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur came to the conclusion that the complainant had not led any evidence to support his contentions. The learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  also came to the conclusion  that  the  cause of action  for the  complaint arose  in the year  1983 but the complaint  was filed  in the year 2009 after the lapse  of 26 years and so the complaint was  miserably  barred by limitation. The learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur therefore dismissed the complaint by an order dated 09/12/2010. Against this order the present appellant has come up  in appeal.

5.         We have heard Mr. Robin Somkuwar, learned advocate for the appellant.   We have also carefully gone through the documents and papers which are placed on record by both the parties.  On carefully going through the record, we find that the complainant has alleged that an agreement has taken place  and in pursuance of the same the complainant had paid sum of Rs. 27,000/- to Shri Ganesh Cooperative Housing Society. However, the complainant has placed on record only two receipts dated 10/09/1983 and 26/05/1979. The complainant has not placed on record any documents regarding having paid the sum of Rs. 27,000/- as alleged.  Further, the complainant has not placed on record the alleged agreement showing the price of the plot as Rs. 27,000/-.   On further scrutiny of the receipts it is seen that there is no mention in what connection the said amount was paid to O.P - Shri Ganesh Cooperative Housing Society. The complainant has not placed on record a single document which could go to show that any plot was in fact allotted to the complainant. Complainant  mainly relied upon  one letter  issued  by  the O.P.- Shri Ganesh Cooperative Housing  Society on 04/08/2008 by which  the complainant  was asked to visit  the spot  and carry out the valuation  of plot after due  selection  but by no  stretch  of imagination  it can be said that  any plot  had  come to the allotted  in favour of the complainant.  If we go through the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur, the  learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has elaborately  discussed  and  considered the evidence on record and thereafter  has rightly  come to the conclusion  that  the  complainant  has failed to establish that  there was any deficiency  in service on the part  of the O.P.  We have also gone through the record carefully and we do not see any reason to interfere with the said findings given by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. Accordingly we hold that the appeal is devoid of any substance and so we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

 i.         Appeal is hereby dismissed.

ii.          Appellant  to bear his own cost as well as cost of  respondent.

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.