EMAAR HILLS TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY S MADHSUDHAN RAO Vs. NARALA SRINIVASULA REDDY & 2 ORS S/O BALI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these Revision Petitions under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the orders dated 24.04.2017 and 07.04.2017 in Firs Appeal No. 253 of 2016 and FAIA No. 22/2017 in FASR No. 63/2017 respectively, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Emaar Hills Township Private Limited and Emaar MGF Land Limited and concurred with the finding of the Ranga Reddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short "the District forum") .

(2.) In this Revision Petition preferred by M/s. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, the brief point that falls for consideration is whether the Petitioner namely, M/s. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited arrayed as the first Opposite Party in the Consumer Complaint No. 26 of 2015, can be held liable to pay the amounts. The State Commission while concurring with the finding of the District Forum observed as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner vehemently contended that both the fora below have erred in making the Petitioner herein as jointly liable though M/s. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited did not receive any consideration; that the Complainants are not Consumers of the Petitioner and that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf. He further contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that during the continuance of force majeure events, the obligations of the Petitioner stands suspended and that as the Petitioner is only the owner of the land which was given to M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited for constructing the project, they have no obligation either to complete the construction or to refund the amounts to the Complainants herein.