ANSAL BUILDWELL LIMITED Vs. KUNAL MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA/16507/2024 (Application for condonation of delay)

(2.) This appeal questions the correctness of the order of the SCDRC Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) dtd. 24/9/2024 whereby Consumer Complaint No. 649 of 2017 filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2/complainants has been allowed, recording findings on deficiency and unfair trade practice holding the appellant along with the builder/developer/respondent no.3 herein liable and directing refund of Rs.25,05,500.00 along with interest as per directions contained therein.

(3.) The appellant has come up challenging the said direction on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the complainants/respondents no.1 and 2, hence fixing of any liability as against the appellant is unjustified and unenforceable in law. It is urged that the State Commission has simply brushed aside this issue and has arrived at a wrong conclusion regarding the involvement of the appellant/Ansal Buildwell Ltd. who were only consultants of the project and nothing more. It is urged by the learned counsel that no consideration has passed on to the appellant and there was no contract for delivery of possession or refund in the absence of delivery by the builder. That responsibility was entirely of the developer, namely, M/s Pacific Construction and Management, the respondent no.3 herein.