National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Dheeraj vs Pankaj on 4 November, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/1326/2017
(Against the Order dated 25th April 2017 in Complaint 62/2013 of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission Maharashtra)
DR. DHEERAJ
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
PANKAJ
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O. ROASHAN DHAWAN PRP. M/S. DHAWAN CONSTRUCTIONS
OFFICE AT DALAL COMPOUND RAJ NAGAR , NAGPUR 13 , MAHARASHTRA ,
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
MR. NALIN MAJITHIA, ADV (VC)
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MR. RAGHAVENDRA MOHAN BAJAJ, ADV (VC) & MR. ZEESHAN AHMED, ADV
DATED: 04/11/2025
ORDER
1. Heard counsel for both sides.
2. Challenge is to the order dated 25.04.2017 of the State Commission vide which complaint filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed.
3. Appellant has challenged the order of the State commission on following grounds:
a. The Circuit Bench, Nagpur have committed an error and has come to wrong conclusion that respondent and his father have not put their signatures on page 1 to 16 as there is no rule and regulation to put signature on every page. At the end of agreement to sale, signatures of the parties are itself sufficient that the parties have agreed the terms and condition for itself, from first page to last page of the agreement and it is practice and custom that there is to sign on last page by parties and witness and acknowledge the entire agreement. b. The learned lower court have come to wrong conclusion that the respondent has denied his signature and signature of his father on last page of agreement to sale of Flat No. 401. The duty and burden lies on respondent to prove it otherwise.
c. The Circuit Bench, Nagpur has also opined and given finding that endorsement on the reverse site page no. 16 of the agreement to sell is handwritten and therefore is doubtful. The Circuit Bench is not an expert person to come to conclusion without any expert evidence.
d. The Circuit Bench, Nagpur has come to wrong conclusion that the actual contract of Flat No. 402 and agreement to sell was cancelled with consent of both parties on the pretext that the respondent will execute regd. sale deed of Flat No. 401.
e. The Circuit Bench, Nagpur erred in holding that the respondent did not agree to execute the sale deed for Flat No. 401 despite the existing agreement to sell. It further erred in observing that the maintenance registers were not signed by the respondent. It is a common practice that maintenance is collected by watchmen or authorized persons, not necessarily signed by the builder. No person would pay maintenance without possession of the flat, a basic fact which is overlooked by the State Commission.
f. The Circuit Bench, Nagpur wrongly concluded that there was no cogent evidence of the agreement to sell Flat No. 401 dated 14.10.2010 or of payment of 25 lakhs by the appellant. The appellant had produced the agreement and detailed the payments in his affidavit. Even the respondent admitted cancelling the agreement for Flat No. 402 on the assurance of executing the sale deed for Flat No. 401 after payment. These admitted facts were ignored, and the Bench failed to appreciate the matter in a summary manner as required under the Consumer Protection Act, thereby dismissing a genuine claim.
4. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased 2 flats from the OPs i.e. flat no. 401 and 402 on 14.10.2010 but Opposite Party admits only the sale of one flat i.e. 402. Further, it is not in dispute that subsequently agreement to sell with respect to the flat 402 was cancelled. The main prayer in the complaint was seeking direction to the Opposite Party to execute sale deed in respect of flat 401 in favour of the complainant.
5. Before the State Commission, complainant has placed copy of the agreement for sale of agreement with respect to flat no.401 but the State Commission suspected the veracity of such an agreement. In this regard, extract of relevant paras of the State Commission is reproduced below:
8. It is pertinent to note that though the alleged agreement to sell dtd. 14.10.2010 in original is produced on record, it does not bear signatures of opposite party and his father on page Nos. 1 to 16. In our view, when it is such material piece of evidence relating to flat No.401, the complainant being well educated person, would have obtained signatures of the opposite party and his father in the capacity of vendor and confirming party on each and every page of the said agreement had the said agreement a real and genuine document. The complainant has not given any explanation as to why he did not obtain signature of opposite party and his father on each and every page of that agreement. Therefore, lack of their signatures on each and every page of said agreement is sufficient to disbelieve the genuineness of the said agreement.
9. Even otherwise, the last page No.17 of that so called agreement does not bear the signature of confirming party though the confirming party in that agreement is shown as Roshan Kundanlal Dhawan, the father of the opposite party and opposite party himself. The complainant has not given any explanation as to why the confirming party being necessary party to the agreement did not put signature even on last page of that agreement.
10. The opposite party has denied his signature on the last page of that agreement as a vendor of flat No.401. He has also denied his signature and his father's signature on the reverse side of page No.16 about acknowledgement of receipt of cash of Rs.10.00 Lacs on 14.10.2010 and Rs.15.00 Lacs on 04.12.2010 from complainant. We find that the said endorsement on reverse side of page No.16 of the alleged agreement as made in handwriting is also very doubtful. The complainant has not explained as to why he did not make payment of Rs. 10.00 Lacs and Rs.15.00 Lacs to the opposite party by way of Cheque or Bank Demand Draft.
11. It is not disputed that the actual contract that took place in between both parties relating to flat No.402 has been cancelled with the consent of both parties and the part consideration of flat No.402 paid by the complainant to the opposite party has been also refunded by the opposite party to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant cannot take benefit of cancellation of contract relating to flat No.402 for claiming his right on flat No.401.
12. It is also pertinent to note that the NIT granted NOC for flat No 402 only in the name of the complainant before cancellation of the contract about the same flat. The NIT granted NOC in only. The said document does not support the case of the respect of flat No.401 in the name of Dhawan Construction complainant relating to plot No.401.
13. The copies of maintenance register produced on record by the complainant, does not prove that the opposite party had agreed to sell flat No.401 to him. The copies of maintenance register are not signed by opposite party about acceptance of maintenance from the complainant as against flat No.401. Therefore, the said maintenance register is of no value.
14. We, are, thus of considered view that the complainant has not proved by cogent evidence that opposite party entered into agreement to sell with him on 14.10.2010 in respect of flat No.401 and he paid part of consideration of Rs. 10.00 Lacs on 14.10.2010 and Rs.15.00 Lacs on 04.12.2010 to the opposite party. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party rendered deficient service to the complainant by refusing to accept balance consideration.
6. During the hearing, other than copy of the agreement for sale of apartment no. 401, which is available at page 87-106 of the paper-book, the appellant has not been able to show any document with respect to allotment / purchase of flat no. 401. This is a 20 page long typed document ( with one page no. 105 being handwritten). It bears signatures of all the parties only at last page i.e. 106 of the paper-book. Although the Opposite Party denied signatures at page 106, even if for arguments sake, it is assumed that page 106 bears signature of the Opposite Party, in no way, this last page can be said to be part of the 20 page agreement as none of the other 18 pages ( except handwritten page 105) are signed by any of the parties and this last page contains no indication whatsoever, whether this page pertains to sale / purchase / allotment of flat no. 401. Further, this page contains signatures and name of 2 witnesses, who have not indicated their address / contact details, thereby defeating the whole purpose of signing agreement in presence of witnesses, who can be called upon to prove the veracity of the document signed in their presence if situation so arise. Further, a look at page 88 i.e. 2nd page of the agreement shows that Sh. Pankaj s/o Sh. Roshan Dhawan who was proprietor of M/s Dhawan Construction at that point of time when this agreement was alleged to be signed i.e. 14.10.2010, has been shown as confirming party but no where his signatures are there on this agreement, not even on the last page 106.
7. After careful consideration of the entire facts of the case and hearing rival contentions, we are of the considered view that State Commission was justified in suspecting the veracity of the said agreement to sale dated 14.10.2010 with respect to flat no. 401 and thereby dismissing the complaint. State Commission has passed a well reasoned order and we do not find any reason to interfere with its findings. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 1326 of 2017 is dismissed.
8. The Appellant herein is free to pursue the other legal remedies before appropriate civil court if he so desires by proving veracity of various documents relied upon by him.
9. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.
..................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN MEMBER