AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 24.10.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, dismissing appeal against the order dated 21.7.2003 of a District Forum whereby petitioners/O.Ps. 3 and 1 and O.P. No. 2 were directed to execute Sale Deed in respect of plot in question after receiving balance payment of Rs. 4,700 and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 or, in the alternative, refund amount of Rs. 19,300 with interest @ 10% p.a. from 4.2.1998 and also pay said compensation and cost to respondent No. 1/complainant.
ON 4.11.1992 petitioner No. 2 firm entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 for sale of plot Nos. 4, 5, 18 and 19 having total area of 2400 sq. ft. situated at Kha. No. 23/1, Village Khasada for consideration of Rs. 24,000 respondent No. 1 paid amount of Rs. 4,000 on the date of agreement itself. Balance amount was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 200 respondent No. 1 alleged that though the total sale consideration was paid by 4.2.1998 still the plots were not transferred by executing and registering the sale deed by petitioner No. 2 firm and its partners. So, alleging deficiency in service the respondent No. 1 filed complaint which was contested by filing written version. In the order dated 21.7.2003 the District Forum returned the finding that respondent No. 1 has proved payment of Rs. 19,300 in total and balance of Rs. 4,700 still remains unpaid. Order further notices the stand taken in written version filed by petitioner No. 1 that Sale Deed can be executed provided that the respondent No. 1 pays Rs. 20,000 and bears the registration charges.
The submission advanced by Mr. Pritesh Bansod, for petitioners was that the amount paid by respondent No. 1 was received by respondent No. 10/ O.P. No. 13 who converted the same to his own use and the partners/other than respondent No. 10, thus, cannot be held liable to pay the awarded amount. Submission is, however, without any merit. Section 18 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 says that subject to the provisions of this Act, a partner is the agent of the firm for the purpose of the business of the firm. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that subject to the provisions of Section 22, the act of a partner which is done to carry on, in the usual way, business of the kind carried on by the firm, binds the firm. The authority of a partner to bind the firm conferred by this section is called his "implied authority. Present case does not fall under Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act. Thus, the payment made by respondent No. 1 allegedly to respondent No. 10 is binding on petitioner No. 1 and remaining partners of petitioner No. 2 firm. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition, is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.