State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Munish Aggarwal. vs M/S Ansal Buildwell Ltd. on 4 October, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Misc Application No.: 141/2018
Consumer Complaint No. 16/2017
Date of Presentation: 12.03.2018
Order reserved on: 02.08.2018
Date of Order : 04.10.2018
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. through its Managing Director
Registered office 118 Upper First Floor Prakash Deep Building-7
Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001.
...... Applicant/Opposite party
Versus
1. Shri Munish Aggarwal S/o. Shri Krishan Gopal House
No.1199 Sector-7 Panchkula-13409.
......Non-applicant/Complainant
2. M/s. Pacific Construction and Management a partnership firm
through its partners Mr. Vikas Madan and Mr. Pankaj Madan
R/o. D-64 First Floor Vikas Marg Shakarpur Delhi-110092.
Residential address also 1 Pacific Upper Second Floor Vikas
Marg Shakarpur Delhi-110092 and residential address also 1
Pacific Upper Second Floor Regal Building Parliament Street
New Delhi-10001.
......Non-applicant/Proposed party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Applicant : Mr. Y. Paul Advocate.
For Non-applicant : Mr. Rakesh Manta Advocate.
For proposed party : None despite notice.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. M/s. Ansal Buildwell Limited through its Managing Director filed an application for deleting the name 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Versus Munish Aggarwal M.A. No.141/2018 in C.C. No.16/2017 of M/s. Ansal Buildwell Limited as co-party and incorporating name of M/s. Pacific Construction and Management as co- party in consumer complaint No.16/2017 titled Munish Aggarwal Versus M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Brief facts of Consumer complaint :-
2. Shri Munish Aggarwal filed consumer complaint against opposite party M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. and sought relief to the effect that opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3676508/-(Thirty six lac seventy six thousand five hundred eight) to the complainant relating to amount paid to opposite party for purchase of flat for residential purpose. It is pleaded that opposite party did not hand over the possession of the flat to complainant and also did not refund the amount paid to the opposite party. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Opposite party filed version pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not within limitation. It is pleaded that M/s. Pacific Construction and Management is necessary party for the disposal of consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that opposite party is merely an agent of M/s. Pacific Construction and Management. It is pleaded that State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to dispose of consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that it was agreed that M/s. Pacific Construction and Management would 2 M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Versus Munish Aggarwal M.A. No.141/2018 in C.C. No.16/2017 construct residential flat and apartments and all expenditure relating to construction development would be borne by M/s. Pacific Construction and Management. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. During pendency of the consumer complaint opposite party i.e. M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. filed application for deleting the name of M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. and for impleading M/s. Pacific Construction and Management through its partners Mr. Vikas Madan and Mr. Pankaj Madan as co-party being necessary party.
5. Per contra response filed on behalf of non- applicant/complainant pleaded therein that there is no privity of contract between proposed party and complainant namely Munish Aggarwal. It is pleaded that M/s. Pacific Construction and Management is not necessary party. Prayer for dismissal of application sought.
6. We have heard learned Advocates for applicant and non-applicant and also perused the entire record carefully. Notice was issued to proposed party as to why application should not be allowed. None appeared on behalf of proposed party despite notice.
7. Following points arise for determination in present Misc. application No.141/2018.
3
M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Versus Munish Aggarwal M.A. No.141/2018 in C.C. No.16/2017
1. Whether M/s. Pacific Construction and Management a partnership Firm is necessary party for disposal of consumer complaint No.16/2017 effectively and completely and to adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in consumer complaint?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that name of applicant i.e. M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. be deleted from the memo of parties is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that privity of contract has been executed between complainant and opposite party i.e. M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. and it is held that opposite party could not be exonerated from liability. It is held that opposite party namely M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd.
is necessary party for the adjudication of present consumer complaint. Hence prayer of applicant that name of applicant be deleted from memo of parties is declined in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice.
9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that M/s. Pacific Construction and Management is a necessary party for the disposal of consumer complaint is decided accordingly. It is prima facie proved on record that complainant namely Munish Aggarwal has signed document with terms and conditions of allotment 4 M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Versus Munish Aggarwal M.A. No.141/2018 in C.C. No.16/2017 placed on record. As per terms and conditions of allotment all payments through demand draft/account payee cheque would be payable to M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. in the account of Pacific Meadows at Delhi only. As per agreement developer is Pacific Meadows. As per terms and condition No.17 of allotment the developer shall have first lien and charge on the said unit for all its dues and other sums payable by the intending allottee to the developer. There is recital in the terms and conditions that all terms and conditions would be binding upon allottee. Terms and conditions dated 16.04.2011 has been signed by Sh. Munish Aggarwal allottee/complainant. Complainant could not be allowed to flout terms and conditions of allotment letter.
10. Even it is prima facie proved that complainant Munish Aggarwal has paid an amount of Rs.150000/-(One lac fifty thousand) on dated 16.04.2011 in payee account of Pacific Meadows. It is also prima facie proved on record that on 10.05.2011 Sh. Munish Aggarwal complainant/allottee has paid an amount of Rs.496254/-(Four lac ninety six thousand two hundred fifty four) in payee account of Pacific Meadows. It is also prima facie proved on record that on dated 31.05.2011 Shri Munish Aggarwal has paid an amount of Rs.646254/-(Six lac forty six thousand two hundred fifty four) in payee account of Pacific Meadows. It is prima facie 5 M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Versus Munish Aggarwal M.A. No.141/2018 in C.C. No.16/2017 proved on record that consideration amount of flat has been paid in the account of Pacific Meadows who is developer of project.
11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicant i.e. Shri Munish Aggarwal that complainant is dominus litis of his consumer complaint and M/s. Pacific Construction and Management is not necessary party in present consumer complaint is decided accordingly. It is true that complainant is dominus litis of his consumer complaint but it is well settled law that concept of dominus litis would not apply upon necessary party. It is well settled law that State Consumer Commission or District Forum could add party in original consumer complaint at any stage of consumer complaint whose presence before State Consumer Commission of District Forum is necessary in order to enable State Commission or District Forum to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in consumer complaint. It is held that M/s. Pacific Construction and Management is necessary party in order to dispose of present consumer complaint properly and effectively and to do substantial justice and to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in consumer complaint. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. 6
M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Versus Munish Aggarwal M.A. No.141/2018 in C.C. No.16/2017 Point No.2: Final Order
12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above application is partly allowed. Prayer of applicant that name of applicant i.e. M/s. Ansal Builwell Ltd. be deleted from the memo of parties is declined. However prayer of applicant that name of M/s. Pacific Construction and Management be impleaded as co-party in consumer complaint No.16/2017 is allowed being necessary party. Notice to newly impleaded party be issued for 12.11.2018. Newly impleaded party will file version within thirty days after the receipt of notice of consumer complaint filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Terms and conditions of agreement signed by Shri Munish Aggarwal dated 16.04.2011 and receipts of consideration amount paid in account of Pacific Meadows dated 16.04.2011, 10.05.2011 and 31.05.2011 shall form part and parcel of order. Observation shall not effect merits of consumer complaint in any manner. M.A. No.141/2018 is disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 04.10.2018 K.D * 7