State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chandrashekhar Chintamani Velankar vs Sagar Prabhale And Associates on 6 March, 2026
A-17-1178
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/17/1178
(Arising against the order dated 31/08/2017 passed by the D.F. Satara in CC/16/96)
Mr.Chandrashekhar Chintamani Velankar
R/o.Vimal Park "B" wing
Flat no.B-1, 391, Guruwar Peth
Satara 415 002 ...... Appellant/org.complainant
Versus
M/s.Sagar Prabhale and Associates
Through Developers
Mr.Sagar Ramchandra Prabhale
R/o.402, Guruwar Peth
.........Respondents/org. OP
Kamani Chambers
Satara 415 002
BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade - President
Vijay C.Premchandani - Member
PRESENT: Adv Z.D.Mulla for appellant
Adv Nikhil Wadikar for respondent
FINAL ORDER
(Dt.06/03/2026)
Per Hon'ble Vijay C.Premchandani - Member
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is original complainant against the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satara in consumer complaint no.CC/16/96 as on 31/08/2017. Facts of the case:-
The present appellant had filed the complaint no.96/2016 before the Ld.District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act The city survey no 218.218/1 and 218/2 situated in Shaniwar peth, Satara Tal and District Satara which is known by Velankar Wada hereinafter 1 A-17-1178 referred to as "Said Properties". The Said Properties is Owned and Possessed by Appellant and his Mother Late Padmini Chintamani Velankar. The Appellant and his mother desired to develop the "Said Properties". The present Respondent approached the Appellant and his mother and told his desire to develop the Said Properties The Respondent has agreed to develop the Said Property according to discussion between present Appellant and Respondent. According to the terms and conditions decided between the parties, the Appellant and Respondent has entered in to the Development Agreement dated 8/09/2000 and Power of Attorney for purpose of taking the required permissions from Government Offices and compliance of essentials or completing the project. The Present Respondent has agreed to provide Complete Consideration against the Development of the Said Properties as per agreed Terms and Conditions between the parties within specified Period. The Said Consideration is subject matter of the Complaint. But the Respondent has not provided the complete agreed consideration within specified time, hence the Appellant was constrained to file Complaint but the Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara rejected the Complaint, hence Appellant has preferred the Present Appeal.
2. The Respondent has filed his say in the original Complaint and denied all the allegations of the Appellant. The Respondent has contended that the Complaint filed by present Appellant is not within the limitation. The Respondent has further contended that Appellant has not made party to all legal heir of his mother late Padmini Chintamani Velankar in the Complaint. The Respondent has further contended that the Appellant has filed the Civil Suit for same purpose and also filed three different Consumer Complaints based on Same Development Agreement. The Respondent has contended that the Appellant is not Consumer of Respondent hence the Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara lacks jurisdiction. Hence prayed for dismissal of Complaint.
3. After hearing both sides the Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara has rejected the consumer Complaint of Appellant.
2A-17-1178
4. The present appeal is preferred by Appellant on the following grounds:-
i. The order of Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara is against the Law of Equity and Good Conscience and it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
ii. The Learned Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara failed to consider the Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act. iii. The Learned Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara has not considered that the whole Complaint of Appellant was strictly based on Documentary evidence produced by Appellant and erred in considering that there was necessity of Oral Evidence of Appellant iv. The Learned Trial Court has erred in considering the Principle of "Double Jeopardy". The Learned Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. Satara has not considered that the Right available under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to right available in Civil Court. v. The Learned Hon District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara has not considered that the Respondent has not provided complete consideration within specified time as per the terms and conditions of Development Agreement.
vi. The Learned Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara has not considered that Appellant had complied with all the Modalities with the Respondent while entering Development Agreement vii. The Learned Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara has not considered that the Appellant has filed the Complaint against the Respondent for Deficiency in Service by making Breach of Agreed Terms and Conditions of the Development Agreement viii. The Learned Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara has not considered that the Regular Civil Suit no.222/2016 filed by Appellant is for mandatory and perpetual injunction and appellant has not prayed for any monetary compensation.3
A-17-1178 ix. The Learned Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara has not considered that Respondent has failed to provide the evidence in support of defence taken by the Respondent.
x. The Learned Hon. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara has mistaken in considering the Rights and Liabilities of Appellant and Respondent as per the Provisions of Development Agreement.
5. The Appellant prayed in this Appeal that the impugned order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission be set aside and the original consumer complaint may be allowed in terms of the prayers made in the original consumer complaint.
6. The appeal was admitted and the notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent appeared. Both the parties have filed written notes of arguments in the appeal. After perusal of the appeal memo and the documents annexed along with the appeal memo as well as the impugned order and both the sides written notes of arguments, we come to the conclusion that the following order should be passed as per the reasons given below:-
REASONING:-
7. The appellant argued that in the original consumer complaint it was the allegation against the respondent that there is non-execution of Conveyance Deed, non- transfer of de-jure possession, breach of specific clauses (3A, 5 & 6) of Development Agreement, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the respondent. The said aspect has not been considered by the Ld.District Consumer Commission and without perusal of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the original consumer complaint was dismissed. The said order is without due consideration of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various judgments pertaining to the additional remedy provided to the Consumer Commission/Courts to decide the issue pertaining to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law.
4A-17-1178
8. The respondent's counsel has argued and submitted that the civil suit was pending before the Civil Court and the prayer clause which has been made in the suit, the specific performance of the Development Agreement, which includes compensation for not completing the construction within the deadline and not handing over possession within the deadline. The same prayer has been made in the consumer complaint as also for compensation. Hence the appellant/complainant has sought relief before the two different Fora, which is not maintainable or permissible in law. Therefore, the Ld.District Consumer Commission has rightly passed an order by rejecting the consumer complaint and prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed with costs.
9. We perused section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. We reproduce the same as under:-
3. Act not in derogation of any other law.--
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
10. We have also gone through the following citations placed on record by the appellant.
a) AIR 2004 Supreme Court 448 in Civil Appeal no.92 of 1998, Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society v/s. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and others, wherein it is held as under:-
From the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. As per Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force.5
A-17-1178 Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar.
b) 2008 AIR SCW 5216 in Civil Appeal no.3302 of 2005, Faquir Chand Gulati v/s. M/s.Uppal Agencies Pvt.Ltd. and another, wherein it is held as under:-
(B) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.2(1)(o) -Deficiency in service- Housing construction- Failure of builder to obtain and deliver completion certificate and assessment forms as per building laws-Is deficiency in service-Builder cannot be discharged of such obligation merely because he has applied for the same.
c) AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787 Lucknow Development Authority v/s.
M.K.Gupta, wherein it is held as under:-
The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment.
d) 2021 ALL SCR 885 Wg.Cdr.Arifur Rahman Khan & ors. v/s. DLF Southern Homes Pvt.Ltd. & ors., wherein it is held as under:-
(B) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.14-Compensation-For delayed handing over of possession of flat by developer-Claim before Consumer Forum-Purchaser need not indefinitely deter obtaining conveyance of premises purchased-It cannot be said that 6 A-17-1178 purchaser for sakes remedy before Consumer Forum by seeking deed of conveyance.
11. From the aforesaid citations and the written notes of arguments placed in this appeal, it reveals that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, provides the consumer to put his grievance pertaining to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice adopted by the respondent, in addition, not in derogation to the remedy provided under the other Acts. We also come to the conclusion that the said section has been brought to achieve and to protect the interest of the consumers, better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly in Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The remedies are available to the aggrieved party under the Consumer Protection Act are wider. Therefore, the Ld.District Consumer Commission while deciding the issue pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the consumer complaint, when the civil suits are pending, decided in negative, is improper and illegal in view of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the said order is required to be set aside and in real sense, the original consumer complaint is to be decided by considering the evidence of both the parties. Hence, we are inclined to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. The appeal is partly allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 31/08/2017 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Satara in consumer complaint no.CC/16/96 is set aside and the original consumer complaint is remanded back to the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Satara and the Registrar of the Ld.District Consumer Commission is directed to restore the consumer complaint.7
A-17-1178
3. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Satara for expediting hearing of the consumer complaint and the Ld.District Consumer Commission is directed to decide the consumer complaint according to the law.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties free of charge.
[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [Vijay C. Premchandani] Member MS 8