L GOPAKUMAR Vs. LEELA MENON & ORS; MULLOTH AMBABY ENCLAVE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER K R SAJEEV; K R SAJEEV, PARTNER, MULLOTH AMBABY ENCLAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by Opposite Party No.3 in the Complaint, is to the order dated 22.05.2010, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.104 of 2007. By the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the order dated 20.12.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.224 of 2005. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the Complainants had failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties in not allotting an ear-marked Garage to the Complainants. On Appeal by one of the Complainants, the State Commission, while partly allowing the Appeal, has directed the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.3, viz., the Developer of the Project, to allot an earmarked garage to the Complainants, within the time specified in the order, failing which they have been directed to pay to the Complainant(s) a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates of handing over of possession of the flats; Rs. 7,500/- as compensation towards harassment and Rs. 8,000/- as cost of litigation, with a default stipulation of levy of interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation, if its directions are not complied with within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(2.) The sole grievance of the Petitioner, who claims to be only an advisor to the Developer, as an Architect, is that both the Forums below have committed material irregularity in not even examining his plea that he was never a partner in the Firm, named and styled as "Mulloth Ambady Enclave", Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in Complaint, which had developed the Project, and therefore, he could not be saddled with liability on account of any act of omission or commission on the part of the said Firm.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants and the Developer (Respondent No.3) and perused the documents on record, in particular, the averments made in the Complaint filed by the Complainant, Respondent No.1 herein, and the Agreement for Construction dated 30.01.2002 between the Complainant and the Developer, I find merit in the Revision Petition.