SURESH C MIRCHANDANI Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who are partners of Kohinoor Builders, were the opposite parties in the complaint filed by respondent/complainant. Respondent alleged that on 4.8.2004 he had booked a duplex bungalow No. 2 and despite his having paid total price of Rs. 3, 60,000 to the builders he has neither been given possession of the bungalow nor refunded the money. Complaint filed alleging deficiency in service by the respondent was contested by the petitioners. District Forum allowed complaint with direction to the petitioners to refund said amount of Rs. 3, 60,000 with interest and compensation, etc. Dissatisfied with District Forum's order the petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission at admission stage by the order dated 16.11.2005. It is this order which is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) THRUST of argument of Mr. V. Jayaraman for petitioner is that as the amount of Rs. 3,60,000 was received by Kohinoor Builders firm, the petitioners are not liable to pay that money. Further, for raising money the bungalow in question was transferred by the petitioners in favour of B.H. Khatwani who mortgaged it with ICICI bank and obtained loan. Though, Mr. Khatwani had assured to re-transfer the bungalow to the person whom it may be sold by petitioners but now he has declined to re-transfer it. Complaint was thus bad for nonjoinder of Mr. Khatwani he being a necessary party to the proceedings. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners are the partners of Kohinoor Builders and, so, they cannot evade liability for refund of amount of Rs. 3,60,000 which was received by the firm from the respondent towards price of said duplex bungalow No. 2 Again, respondent had nothing to do with inter se dispute between petitioners and Mr. Khatwani regarding re-transfer of bungalow in question by the latter nor Mr. Khatwani was a necessary party to the complaint. Orders passed by Fora below do not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision is dismissed.