RAJAN RAMANI Vs. GLUCK DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, though got substantial relief in the complaints by State Commission, have preferred First Appeals before this Commission, seeking relief that along with respondent no.3, respondents no. 1 and 2 also be directed to share compensation awarded by State Commission jointly and severally.

(2.) Factual matrix are that a deed of agreement was executed by appellants and respondents on 28th of August, 1995 for purchase of certain square meters on ground floor, first floor and second floor. Subsequently, certain additions were made in the agreement on 28th of June, 1996 with consent of parties, wherein status of respondents/opposite parties was made explicit as while respondent no. 2 was transposed as builder/developer, respondent no.1 was shown as confirming party. Yet another agreement was executed on 28th of June, 1996 between respondent no.3 and respondents no. 1 & 2. Status of respondents no. 1 and 2 by an agreement dated 31st of October, 1996 was shown as owners of property. Certain changes were also made in the agreement with regard to purchase of area in complex. The date of delivery of possession by this agreement was, however, extended till 31st October, 1998. The issue became debatable after delivery of possession was not effected to appellants beyond 31st of October, 1998, despite substantial amount of consideration having been paid by them. A legal notice was issued and eventually door of consumer fora was knocked filing complaints seeking direction for delivery of possession of premises in question and also award of compensation. Complaints were resisted by respondents no. 1 and 2 holding that after execution of agreement on 31st of October, 1996 by appellants with respondent no. 3, appellants had ceased to be consumers qua them. Parties led evidence during pendency of proceedings before State Commission and State Commission having taken notice of the fact that despite payment of substantial consideration, delivery of possession of premises had not been effected to appellants, held that respondent no.3, who was given development right by owner in terms of agreement executed with them, was squarely answerable. State Commission having considered stipulations made in agreement which was executed with respondent no.3 returned a finding that clause 3 thereof specifically stipulates that it was the developer, respondent no.3, who was to construct premises and hand over possession of premises within 24 months from date of agreement and in case of failure, clause 6 of the agreement saddled respondent no.3 with penal interest. It is in these backgrounds that regard being had to stipulations made in agreement that State Commission directed respondent no.3 alone to make over possession of premises along with occupancy certificate. Added to this, respondent no.3 was also saddled with financial obligation to pay interest @ 15% per annum on deposits made by appellants. Cost of Rs.8000/- was also awarded by the State Commission in both the complaints.

(3.) Though number of grievances are raised by appellants in these proceedings, the ground for which finding of State Commission is sought to be challenged was failure of State Commission to make respondents no. 1 and 2 also answerable jointly and severally and respondents to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- per month. Since State Commission has saddled respondent no.3 alone in view of liability cast on respondent no.3, we are of the view that finding recorded by State Commission cannot be said to be erroneous and, in the circumstances, this revision petition being bereft of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.