AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K.Jain, Presiding Member
The complainants who are petitioners herein, entered into agreements with respondent no.7 (OP No.5 in the Consumer Complaint) namely Mr. John Baptist Roddrigues for purchase of residential flats paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in RP/2050/2019, Rs.4,11,400/- in RP/2051/2019, Rs.8,15,000/- in RP/2052/2019, Rs.8,65,000/- in RP/2053/2019 & Rs.8,60,000/- in RP/2054/2019. The possession, according to the complainants, was to be delivered within 15 months of the agreement. The possession however, was not delivered. The case of the petitioners is that OP No.1 to 4 are the owners of the land on which the flats were to be constructed and OP No.1, 2 & 4 in the Consumer Complaint had also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of OP No.5 authorizing him to construct and sell the residential flats on their property. The case of the complainants is that the aforesaid immovable property was transferred to OP No.7 and OP No.8 namely Madhusudan Acharya and Archana Acharya. Since the possession of the flats was not delivered to them, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of Consumer Complaints impleading the land owners as well as the subsequent purchasers in addition to OP No.5 Mr. John Baptist Roddrigues as the OPs in the Consumer Complaint. The prayer made in the complaint was for refund of the amount which the complainant had paid to OP No.5 alongwith interest and compensation.
OP No.7 & 8 in the Consumer Complaint, to whom the subject property is alleged to have been transferred, filed applications before the District Forum seeking dismissal of the Consumer Complaints against them. The said applications having been dismissed, they approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate Revision Petitions. The Revision Petitions were allowed and the complaints were dismissed against OP No.7 & 8. The complainants are pending against the other OPs. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioners/complainants are before this Commission.
It is an admitted position that there is no privity of contract between the complainants and OP No.7 & 8 in the Consumer Complaints. It is also an admitted position that the agreements were executed only between the complainants and OP No.5 namely Mr. John Baptist Roddrigues. It is also an admitted position that the payment was made by the complainants only to OP No.5 Mr. John Baptist Roddrigues.
The prayer made in the Consumer Complaint is for refund of the amount which the complainants/petitioners had paid to OP No.5 Mr. John Baptist Roddrigues with interest and compensation. The complainants have not claimed possession of the flats which OP No.5 had agreed to sell to them. If the complainants succeed on merits, they will be entitled to refund and compensation only from OP No.5 and not from OP No.7 & 8. Therefore, neither they are necessary nor are they proper parties to the Consumer Complaints which the petitioners had filed before the District Forum. The view taken by the State Commission is absolutely in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petitions are therefore, dismissed.