NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. vs REENA BANERJEE

REENA Banerjee and Gautam Bose, the complainants filed two separate complaints in respect of a sale of flats by Alok Ganguly who was a promoter of a building proposed to be constructed at 49, Dr. Radha Gobinda Nath Sarani, Police Station Jadavpur, District 24 - Parganas (South). There were two separate agreements in respect of two self-contained flats - one at 3rd floor and the other at second floor. The consideration payable was Rs. 6.50 lakhs and Rs. 7.00 lakhs respectively. REENA Banerjee has paid Rs. 6.20 lakhs and Gautam Bose Rs. 6.68 lakhs to the promoter pursuant to the agreement which means practically the entire price of the two flats has been paid.

THE promoter even after the sale of aforesaid two flats entered into an agreements with M/s. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India (hereinafter described as NACMFT) for sale of the entire premises which was going to come up at 49, Dr. Radha Gobinda Nath Sarani, P.S. Jadavpur, District 24-Parganas (South). The complainants coming to know of this agreement with NACMFT protested against the agreement. The case of the NACMFT was that they were bona fide purchasers. They were not aware of the agreement to sell flats entered into by the promoter with the two complainants. The complainants thereafter could not make any claim against the NACMFT.

The dispute was sought to be resolved by a tripartite conference. Ultimately an agreement in writing was entered into by all the three parties. It was agreed that the promoter will make arrangement for payment of Rs. 12.00 lakhs to the complainant - Reena Banerjee and Rs. 8.84 lakhs to the complainant - Gautam Bose and upon such payments being made both the complainants will forego and relinquish all rights and benefits arising out of aforesaid two contracts entered into by them with the promoter in order to enable the promoter to sell the entire premises to NACMFT.

HOWEVER, in respect of this tripartite agreement no payment was made to Reena Banerjee and Gautam Bose. They lodged a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal seeking appropriate relief. Before the State Commission the stand taken by the promoter was that he was unable to pay back the entire amount at a time to the two complainants. He instituted a case being title Suit No. 438/94 in the First Court of the Munsiff at Alipore. The said Court had granted permission to him to pay the complainants in easy monthly instalments. It was contended on behalf of the promoter that in view of this order passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction the complainants could not raise their demand once again before the State Commission. The case of the complainants was that the complaints were instituted long before the filing of the suit. The subject matter of the suit and the complaints were quite different.

THE State Commission recorded that the order passed by the Civil Court was produced before it and it found that the Court has merely said that the promoter could pay the sums due in respect of the aforesaid building at his own risk. THE State Commission concluded : "We are fully convinced that the O.P. No. 1 having taken almost the entire money from the said complainants surreptitiously entered into an agreement with the opp. party No. 3 to make out some wrongful gain is so possible".

The State Commission thereafter in the interest of justice tried to resolve the controversy by going into the merits of the case made out by NACMFT. Ultimately, after an analysis of the case it tried to protect the interest of the two complainants by directing NACMFT to return the amounts paid by the two complainants to them. The order was in the nature of a garnishee order. We are of the view that the State Commission should not have gone into the questions raised by NACMFT nor should have gone into the allegations made against them. The Commission should have confined itself to the complaint lodged by the complainants against the building promoter. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that everything that was done was in the interest of justice and NACMFT had practically agreed to the order that was passed. We are of the view that the State Commission could not have passed any order against NACMFT by going into the alleged tripartite agreement. If the dispute was not between the consumer and the building promoter but arose out of the alleged tripartite agreement then the dispute could not have been resolved by the State Commission. Although, it was strenuously argued on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the order was based on consent. We do not read the order as a consent order. Moreover, the Court cannot pass an order in excess of its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the State Commission cannot be expanded by consent of parties. The jurisdiction is limited to redressal of consumer disputes as laid down in the Act. If the complainants had a complaint against the NACMFT they could have filed a suit against them. It has been stated on behalf of the complainants that ultimately justice has been done in this case but we are of the view that the State Commission usurped the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which it did not possess.

HOWEVER NACMFT have a case before us. They did not consent to the order that has been passed and it has been contended that the State Commission did not have jurisdiction to pass any order against them. We are of the view that the point taken by the NACMFT has substance. The State Commission has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in passing order against NACMFT. The order of the State Commission is set aside and remanded back to the State Commission. The State Commission will consider the case now on the basis of the complaint lodged before it and confine the dispute as between Reena Banerjee and Gautam Bose against Alok Ganguly, the promoter. The State Commission is at liberty to pass whatever order it thinks fit, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. The appeal is allowed as above. Appeal allowed.