DELTA ASSOCIATES Vs. LALSAB A NAIKODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 1.3.1994 of the State Commission, Goa allowing the complaint and directing Opposite Parties 1, 2 and 3 (Appellants herein) to furnish certain documents requested for by the Complainant as being required for obtaining loan facility, on the grant of which the Complainant should pay the balance amount to the appellants and thereupon the appellants should deliver the possession of the flat within 7 days of such payment

(2.) THE appellants entered into an agreement of sale dated 23rd November, 1990 with , respect to the property admeasuring 3600 sq. mtrs. known as NAGAMOSODICODIL BORCD TICAN with owners for the purpose of construction of building premises therein comprising of flats/garages and shops. The appellants planned to build on ownership basis flats/ shops in the said plot and offered to sell. By registered agreement dated 20.9.1991 between the Complainant and the appellants, the Complainant agreed to purchase and the appellants agreed to sell a single bed room flat admeasuring approximately 54.63 sq. mtrs. situated on the 2nd floor of the proposed building for the price of Rs. 1,36,000/- payable as per Schedule-Ill annexed to the agreement reading as follows : Schedule III hereinabove referred to :

(3.) MR . Manoj Swarup, the learned Counsel for the appellants concedes that in August, 1992, the Complainant approached the appellants stating that the Complainant intended to raise housing loan from GSCHFF and wanted copies of all documents of title and that he collected the file containing copies of all documents in respect of the said property in which the proposed building was being constructed inclusive of a power of attorney dated 14.6.1992 executed by the owners of the said property in favour of the appellants. The Counsel submits that though the appellants had given the documents, yet the raising of finance or making payments to the appellants towards the consideration of the said flat is the entire responsibility of the Complainant who had not hired the services of the appellants for consideration. The Counsel sums up that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning and ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and grant the relief.