TRUPTI K PATEL Vs. ROCKLINES CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RELYING on the decision in Rameswaran & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Banerjee & Ors. the submission advanced by Shri Naresh Kaushik for the opposite parties was that neither the complainants in these two complaints are consumers nor opposite party No. 1 whereof opposite No. 2 is as partner, service provider within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ˜Act) and the complaints are, thus, liable to be dismissed on that score alone. On this issue we have heard Shri Kumar Kant Patel, husband of the complainant in O.P. No. 194/98 and representative of the complainant in O.P. No. 55/99.

(2.) PLOT No. 1/2, Fort Road, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Road, Corporation Division No.73, Bangalore having an area of 928.03 sq. mtrs. was owned by the complainant in O.P. No. 194/98. For developing this plot she entered into an agreement dated 25.01.1993 with opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2. Supplementary agreement between the parties was entered into on 12.04.1995. Identical agreement/supple -mentary agreement were entered into between the opposite parties and the complainant in O.P. No. 55/99 in respect of plot No. 1/3 situated at Fort Road, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Road, Corporation Division No. 73, Bangalore having an area of 931.06 sq. mtrs. On the controversy on hand, reference to some of the clauses of the agreement dated 25.01.1993 (copy at pages 14 to 37 on the file of O.P. No.194/98) has become necessary and same are reproduced below:

(3.) IN supplementary agreement dated 12.04.1995, details of the apartments falling to the shares of owner and developer have been given.