Per Hon'ble Dr. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member

1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now Commission) at Wardha, in consumer complaint no. CC/ 30/ 2014, order dated 12^th June 2015, this appeal has been filed by one of the builders/ developers/ promoters, Mr. Mahesh Vasudeva Gosewade, against the order passed, in which the complaint was partly allowed directing the appellant to execute the sale deed in respect of agricultural lands in favour of 5 original complainants who joined together in this complaint.
2. The brief facts of this appeal are as follows.

The appellant Mr. Mahesh Wasudeorao Gosewade, along with respondents no. 6 (Shri. Balaji Infrastructures), 7 (Shri. Vasant Balaji Ukrande), and 8 (Sou. Sneha Raju Kotapalliwar) are joint owners and joint possessors of the agricultural lands admeasuring about 37. 58 HR, the land situated at mouze Wanarkund, Grama Panchayat Kachanoor, Tehsil Arvi, District Wardha bearing survey No.44-area 2.55 Hr.survey no.42-area 1.30 HR,Survey No.45/1 area 2.00 Hr.Survey No.45/1-area 4.00 Hr.Survey No.52,area 2.10 Hr. Survey No.40 area 3.16 Hr. Survey No.47 area 8.12 Hr., Survey No.48, area 1.82 Hr., Survey No.55 area 2.68 Hr., Survey No.34 area 3.70 Hr., Suyrvey No.56 area 0.68 Hr. Survey No.38, area 6.15 Hr. Suyrvey No.35 area 1.10 HR, Survey No.36 area 2.10 Hr. Survey No.57 area 1.88 Hr, Survey No.39 area 0.54 Hr.

          Respondents no. 1 to 13 (Smt. Veena Vasant Ukrande, Bhaskar Balaji Ukrande, Smt.Snehal Ajey Mohatkar, Smt. Sheetal Pravin Vahadude, and Manohar Balaji Ukrande)booked agricultural lands with M/s Shri Balaji Infrastructure, the developer firm that was in the business of developing agricultural land and selling it out to buyers. The said land was divided into different units. Respondents no. 6, 7, and 8 and the appellant executed various agreements in favour of respondents no. 1 to 5 in the year 2011. The land was developed by the builders/developers/promoters in the name of “Gondwana Shimmering Medos” and Balaji Infrastructures sold the land units. Out of the land units, 17 units were sold as well a sale deeds were executed. But Balaji Infrastructures failed to execute sale deeds in favour of respondents no.1 to 5. Following are the details of the dates of the agreement, the amount paid, and the area of the land allotted.

The consideration was paid to Balaji Infrastructure Private Limited, so the money was received by respondents no. 6, 7, and 8. As, respondents, no. 6, 7, and 8 did not execute sale deeds in favour of respondents no. 1 to 5, these respondents-the original complainants approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now Commission) at Wardha and filed a consumer complaint in the year 2014.

3.      The opposite parties defended the complaint, by filing a written statement, one on behalf of Balaji Infrastructures, Ops no.1 to 3 and the present appellant Shri. Mahesh Gosewade, OP.no.4 filed separate written statement, evidence, and written notes of arguments. The complaint was decided by the learned District Consumer Forum on 12^th June 2015, partly allowing the complaint, the opposite parties in the complaint, present respondents no. 6, 7, and 8, along with the appellant were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 1 to 5; and were directed to pay compensation Rs.4, 000/- towards physical and mental agony and Rs.1, 000/- towards the cost of the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, the present appellant, who was one of the builders/ promoters, approached this Commission by filing the appeal against the order, with a prayer as to set aside impugned judgmentand order passed by District Consumer Forum,Wardha.
4. We heard the submissions and arguments advanced by learned advocates of both parties and perused the record. Considering the rival contentions of both sides and the scope of the appeal, we record our findings and observations accordingly.
5. Learned advocate for the appellant invited the attention of the commission to the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha, dated 12^thJune 2015, in consumer complaint case no. CC/ 30 / 2015, by which the appellant along with other partners was directed to execute the sale deed. According to the learned advocate, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission at Wardha was illegal and there are several errors in this order. The learned advocate submitted that,

1. There was a partnership agreement between Balaji Infrastructure Ltd.and partners of the firm, the same was filed by the complainant on record. The land was purchased by a person and not by the firm.
2. There was a dispute between the partners in this partnership agreement,and because of this, the present dispute arose. The appellant has placed the partnership deed on record, as the partnership agreement that was filed by the complainant, was not the original partnership deed. And learned District Consumer Forum rejected the application of the appellant, for placing the original copy of the partnership deed on record.
3. According to the learned advocate for the appellant, the present dispute is a complicated question of fact and law, and hence learned District Forum must not have decided this complaint.
4. That, the complaint filed by the complainants before the District Consumer Forum was barred by limitation and hence the order passed by the district consumer forum was illegal.
5. That the receipts filed on record by the respondents, original complainants, from page no. 342 of appeal compilation onwards, are fabricated and the appellant does not accept these receipts.
6. That the sale agreement filed by the appellant on page number 412 is the genuine document and not any other document. Hence according to the learned advocate, there is a dispute regardingthe genuineness of the documents.
7. That,notices were sent by the complainants,they were not sent to the firm, but to the individual partners of the firm.Reference document dated 14th November 2013.
8. That, the present appellant did not receive any money- consideration, but the firm received the considerations as per reference documents page 215 onwards to page no.266 showing income Tax filing of the partnership firm. Original complainants are relatives of respondents no. 1 and 2, hence the total dispute was raised to involve him by the complainants, and presently respondents number 1 to 5, obtaininga favourable order from the District Consumer forum.
9. That, the present appellant is disputing all the documents which are on record about the genuineness of the documents.
10. That, the learned District Consumer Forum did not address the grievance of the appellant and should have directed both parties to approach Civil Court and rejected the prayer of the appellant for the dispute to be resolved by the Civil Court.
11. That, District Consumer Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction, since the opposite parties are from Nagpur and the cause of action arose at Nagpur. There was no jurisdiction for the complaint that was decided by the District Forum.
12. That learned District Forum allowed five complainants together to join in filing this complaint without asking them to file a complaint under section 12 (1) (c).
13. That, no Expert Opinion was obtained about the genuineness of the documents filed before the consumer forum.
14. That, the complaint was decided and the order was passed by only two members of the learned District Consumer Forum, though the power was not vested in them.
15. Thus, the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum was not only illegal but also not just and proper. Hence the learned advocate for the appellant prayed for setting aside the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.

The appellants have placed their reliance on an array of following judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, National Commission etc.

1. Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the matter of Ganeshlal Vs. Shyam Civil appeal No.331/2007 decided on 26/9/2013, reported in (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 773.

2.  Judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  in the matter of Landmark Apartments Pvt.Ltd. Vs.Devendersingh Sawhney, reported in IV (2018) CPJ 81 (NC).

3. Judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  in the matter of Chilukuri Adarsh Vs.Ess Ess Vee Constructions reported in III (2012) CPJ 315 (NC).

4. Judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  in the matter of Annu Enterprises India  Vs.Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors., reported in I (2012) CPJ 552 (NC)

5. Judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  in the matter of Landmark Apartments Pvt.Ltd. Vs.Devendersingh Sawhney, reported in IV (2018) CPJ 81 (NC).

6. Judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  in the matter of Charitkumar & Ors. Vs. The Administrator, Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Rambas Tehsil Laxman Garh,Dist.Alwar , reported in 2003(2)  CPR 58 (NC).

7. Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the matter of K.Sagar, Managing Director of Kiran Chitfund, Musheerabad Vs. A.Balreddy and Anr., reported in 2008 Mh.L.J. P.532.

8. Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the matter of K.Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. B.K.Sood, reported in (2006) Supreme Court Cases 164.

9.   Judgement of Gujarat State Consumer Commission, Ahmedabad in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Ambalal Madhavlal Patel reported in II (1993) CPJ 1118.
10. Judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  in the matter of Pannalal Vs. Bank of India & Ors. Reported in CPR (I) 1992 34.
11. Judgement of Union Territory State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh in the matter of D.S. Kohli Vs. Baldevsingh Pabla and Anr. reported in III (2001) CPJ 274.
12. Judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  in the matter of M/s M/s Special Machines Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. Reported in CPR (I) 1991 52.
13. Judgement of Gujarat State Consumer Commission, Ahmedabad in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Ambalal Madhavlal Patel reported in V-VI-1993(2) CPJ 134.
14. Judgement of West Bengal State Consumer Commission, Kolkata in the matter of Trans Scan Securities (P) Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr.reported in I (2003) CPJ 94.
15. Judgement of Gujarat State Consumer Commission, Ahmedabad in the matter of Telecom District Manager Vs. Acharya Jagdishchandra Harischandra reported in I(1994) CPJ 301.
16. Judgement of Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai in the matter of Naresh Prabhakar Ahire Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2811.
17. Judgement of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission, Circuit Sitting, Jabalpur in the matter of

Goodwill Computers & Anr. State of M.P.reported in I(2001) CPJ 161.

18. Judgement of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission, Shimla in the matter of Kewalram Thakur Vs. Senior Superintendent Post Office\reported in I(1998) CPR 92.
19. Judgement of Hariyana State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh in the matter of Ex.Engineer, Operation H.S.E.B. Hissar Vs. Dr.Chander Bhan  reported in I(1991) CPJ 653.

We have gone through the above rulings. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, found to be squarely not applicable.

6. While replying to the submissions made by the appellant’s advocate, the learned advocate for  respondents no.1 and 2, submitted that,

1. The respondents – the original complainants done payments to the firm, and the statement of accounts is filed on record which reflects the same.

2.  The partnership agreement which is filed by the original complainants was obtained from the bank, which the bank handed over in reply to the RTI filed bythe complainants.  It was this partnership deed that was filed by the appellant in the bank and hence the genuineness of this partnership deed cannot be doubted.  pages  156-157

3. The income tax returns filed by the partnership firm are

signed by the appellant, copies of which are filed on record. Ref. page 229 of the appeal compilation, which also shows the schedule of advances against the booking of plots.

4.  On perusal of documents signed by the appellant, the signatures of the appellant appeared to be the same.
5.  The appellant cannot raise the dispute about documentation as the same was not raised before the District Consumer Forum by the appellant.
6. The partnership dispute which the appellant is mentioning should have been resolved and the same cannot be part of this consumer case.
7.  Since the disputed plots are located in District Wardha, the cause of action arose in Wardha, hence the District Consumer Forum of Wardha had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
8.  In the case of the alleged fabrication of the documents, the appellant did not take any legal action so as to show the bonafide intention before raising the issue.
9.  The order which was passed by two members of the learned District Consumer Forum is as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as well as Hon’ble High Court, has confirmed in a recent order that in the absence of the president of the consumer forum,  two of the members can pass the order.
10.  In view of the above submissions, the earned advocate for respondents no. 1 to 5, prayed for dismissal of the appeal and to confirm the order passed by the learned District consumer forum.

7. The learned advocate for respondents Nos. 6,7, and 8, supported these submissions and contentions of respondents no. 1 to 5.   According to the learned advocate for respondents no. 6, 7, and 8,they are ready to execute an agreement if the appellant supports it.
8. After hearing the submissions and the arguments advanced by the learned advocates of both sides, the perusal of records, and the judgment and the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum at Wardha, our observations are as follows,

1. The partnership firm has accepted the payments of the originalcomplainants and also executed the agreements of sale.
2.  The appellant has signed on the receipts that were issued to respondents no. 1 to 5 (the original complainants).
3.  The partnership agreement filed by the complainant/ respondent in this appeal is on record, andsince it is obtained from the bank via RTI application, the same may be considered as a genuine agreement.
4.  The appellant tried to raise the partnership dispute and questioned the genuineness of the documents filed by the complainant.  In our opinion, this is to avoid executing sale deeds in favour of the original complainants.  District Consumer Forum has recorded the same reason.
5.  On perusal of the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, the forum has rightly considered the view taken by original complaints while filing the complaint and also examined all the documents filed in the complaint. 
6. That, in the absence of the President of the District Consumer Forum, due to the vacancy of the position, two members in the District Forum can hear and decide the complaint.  This is according to the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

9.  In view of the above discussion, this commission is of the opinion that the learned District Consumer Forum has passed the judgment and order in accordance with the provisions available in Consumer Protection Act 1986 and there is no error or illegality.  Hence, there is no need to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum of Wardha. In view of this we passed following order, 

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed with a cost quantified to Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
2. Copy of this order is to be given to all the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 28^th July 2022