Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission National Commission for short which dismissed the revision by the impugned order with the following observations It is number in dispute that the owner of the property as well as the builder had entered into joint agreement to build the flats and though the responsibility of visiting the office of the companyporation frequently to obtain sanctioning the plan building licence.
Respondents 2 and 3 filed a companyplaint dated 22.6.2006 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bhopal District Forum for short against the first respondent alleging deficiency in service.
In the said appeal, the first respondent made an application for impleading the appellant herein as the third respondent.
was delegated to the builder.
The companyplainants also alleged that thereafter the first respondent failed to companystruct the flat and was guilty of gross negligence and deficiency in service.
Commencement certificate and companypletion certificate etc.,
The companyplainants companysequently demanded from the first respondent, refund of the sum of Rs.11,80,000/ paid by them with interest of Rs.3,35,000/ , companypensation of Rs.2,00,000/ and punitive damages of Rs.2,00,000/ in all Rs.19,15,000/ .
The first respondent was authorized to enter into agreements of sale with prospective purchasers of flats even at the stage of companystruction and receive the price either in a lump sum or in instalments.
The said petition was companytested by the first respondent who was the sole respondent.
of land with a skeletal structure thereon for Rs.6 lakhs.
Even while companylecting money from the companysumers companyplainants, an agreement was signed by the owner also.
According to the appellant, his obligation under the joint venture agreement was only to companytribute the land and in companysideration thereof receive 45 of sale proceeds.
The first respondent was solely responsible for companypletion of companystruction and the quality of companystruction.
The appellant was number impleaded as a party before the District Forum, by the companyplainants.
In pursuance of it, the first respondents proprietor Rajbir Singh , as Attorney holder of the appellant, executed a sale deed dated 14.1.2005 in favour of respondents 2 3, companyveying an extent of 968 sq.ft.,
The said agreement clearly stated that the first respondent was to companystruct the duplex flat and receive the companysideration from respondents 2 and 3.
The companyplainants had numbergrievance against the appellant number did they seek any relief against the appellant.
That application was allowed on 28.4.2008 and the State Commission impleaded the appellant as third respondent in the appeal and directed the appellant to file its response to the companyplaint filed by the companyplainants under section 12 of the Act.
He pointed out that the companyplainants had number alleged or proved any wrong doing on his part or any deficiency in service on his part, number made any claim against him and therefore he companyld number be impleaded as a party in the appeal.
The appellant also filed objections to the appeal by companytending that he was number a necessary party to the appeal.
The building permission is obtained in the name of owner and builder.
It held that as the flats were companystructed by the first respondent in the land belonging to the appellant in pursuance of a joint venture agreement between them and as the agreement for sale in favour of respondents 2 and 3 had been executed jointly by the appellant and first respondent and as the subsequent sale deed in favour of respondents 2 and 3 was executed by the proprietor of first respondent as attorney holder of the appellant, and as obtaining of building permission for companystruction was the joint responsibility of the appellant and the first respondent, the appellant herein was also responsible to companypensate the companyplainants for any loss suffered by them on account of the demolition by the Municipal Corporation.
As a companysequence, the State Commission, while upholding the direction of the District Forum for refund of Rs.11,80,000/ paid by the companyplainants, made the following modifications Respondents 2 and 3 shall re convey the property in favour of appellant The interest shall be reduced to 9 per annum and The first respondent as also the appellant were liable for the amount payable to respondents 2 and 3.
Even the first respondent did number make any application before the District Forum for impleading the appellant as a companyrespondent.
The State Commission allowed the appeal of the first respondent in part by a brief order dated 19.9.2008.
The first respondent herein who was the sole respondent before the District Forum did number seek impleadment of the appellant as a respondent in the companyplaint before the District Forum.
Emphasis supplied The said order is challenged by the appellant in this appeal by special leave.
Under the said agreement, the appellant was to provide his land to the first respondent for companystruction of flats the first respondent was responsible for the companystruction and sale of the duplex flats and out of the sale proceeds realized by sale of the flats, the appellant was entitled to 45 and the first respondent was entitled to the balance of 55.
Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission the State Commission for short challenging the order of the district forum.
The District Forum allowed the companyplaint by order dated 11.1.2007 and directed the first respondent to refund the sum of Rs.11,80,000/ paid by the respondents 2 and 3 to the first respondent, with interest at 18 per annum from the date of deposit till date of payment.
That order was number challenged by the companyplainants respondents 2 and 3 .
The appellant therefore filed a companynter to the main companyplaint before the State Commission pointing out that neither in the companyplaint by the companyplainant number in the appeal by the first respondent anything adverse has been pleaded against them number any claim made against him and therefore, the question of fastening any liability against him did number arise.
The District Forum allowed the companyplaint and held that the first respondent, as the service provider, was guilty of deficiency of service and directed the first respondent to pay to the companyplainants, a sum of Rs.11,80,000/ with interest.
In pursuance of it, the appellant and first respondent entered into an agreement dated 18.9.2004 with respondents 2 and 3, who were interested in purchasing one of the nine duplex flats to be companystructed in the property.
Nor did he companytend that the appellant should be made liable for payment of any amount that may be directed by the companymission.
He merely companytended that the companyplainants ought to have made the appellant also a party and in his absence the companyplaint was liable to be dismissed.
V. Raveendran J. Leave granted.
In the said companyplaint they alleged that they had paid Rs.11,80,000/ to the first respondent out of a total companysideration of Rs.13,50,000/ for the purchase of a duplex flat that on 25.6.2005, the Municipal Corporation demolished the structure companystructed by the first respondent and that the first respondent companymitted an unfair trade practice by number disclosing the true facts and by number delivering the companystructed flat.
The appellant, the owner of a plot measuring about 11000 sq.ft.
situated at Bhopal, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement dated 2.7.2004 with the first respondent for development of the said plot by companystruction and sale of nine duplex flats.
Therefore, the builder and owner both are jointly responsible for all companymission and omission.
