National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Surender vs Kavita & 2 Ors. on 1 May, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2429 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 01/06/2016 in Appeal No. 939/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. SURENDER S/O SH.SOHAN LAL,
R/O H.NO-663, TUGLAKABAD NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. OM PRAKASH & 3 ORS. S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR DAYAL,
R/O H.NO-200, SAVITRI NAGAR, NEAR MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI -17 2. MS.SUBHASH , S/O SH.JAGMAL, R/O HOUSE NO-660, TUGLAKABAD NEW DELHI 3. M/S.KAPIL PROPERTIES, VILLAGE ATMADPUR,
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI SUBHASH, FARIDABAD HARYANA 4. PAWAN, S/O SH.MAHAVIR SINGH, R/O B-131, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2430 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 01/06/2016 in Appeal No. 940/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) WITH
IA/7868/2016(Stay),IA/7869/2016(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. SURENDER SO/ SOHAN LAL. R/O HOUSE NO. 663, YUGALKABAD NEW DELHI. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAJA RAM & 2 ORS. S/O SH. RAI SINGH R/O H.NO. 115, VILLAGE NALVIYA NAGAR NEW DELHI - 17 2. MS. SUBHASH, S/O SH. JAGMAL R/O HOUSE NO. 660, TUGLAKABAD NEW DELHI 3. M/S KAPIL PROPERTIES, VILLAGE ATMAPUR, THOURHG ITS PROPRITOR SHRI SUBHASH FARIDABAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2431 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 01/06/2016 in Appeal No. 941/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) WITH
IA/7870/2016(Stay),IA/7871/2016(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. SURENDER S/O. SH. SOHAN LAL, R/O. HOUSE NO. 663, TUGALKABAD NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KAVITA & 2 ORS. W/O. SHRI YASHPAL, R/O. H.NO. 121-B, SAVITRI NAGAR, NEAR MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110017 2. SUBHASH S/O. SH. JAGMAL, R/O. H.NO. 660, TUGLAKABAD NEW DELHI 3. M/S. KAPIL PROPERIETS, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI SUBHASH,VILLAGE ATMADPUR, FARIDABAD HARYANA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2432 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 01/06/2016 in Appeal No. 942/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) WITH
IA/7872/2016(Stay),IA/7873/2016(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. SURENDER KUMAR S/O. SH. SOHAN LAL, R/O. HOUSE NO. 663, TUGALKABAD NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VIJAY SHANKER TIWARI & 2 ORS. S/O. SH. RAM SUMER TIWARI, R/O. H.NO. B-183, SAVITRI NAGAR, NEAR MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110017 2. SUBHASH S/O. SH. JAGMAL, R/O. H.NO. 660, TUGLAKABAD NEW DELHI 3. M/S. KAPIL PROPERIETS, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI SUBHASH,VILLAGE ATMADPUR,
FARIDABAD HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MR. DINESH KUMAR For the Respondent : MR. RAMESHWAR NARWAL
Dated : 01 May 2018 ORDER
O R D E R (ORAL)
Challenge in these four Revision Petitions by Opposite Party No.3 in original Complaints, namely Surender, a Real Estate Developer, is to the four orders, all dated 1.6.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in FA/ FA 939 - 942/2015. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 21.3.2014 & 19.1.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaints No.212, 213, 214 & 216/2013 and has thus dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner.
2. Since the factual matrix leading to the filing of the Complaints involved in all these cases is identical and further, all the Appeals have been disposed of by the State Commission by a common order, all these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
3. In the first instance, while allowing the Complaints preferred by Respondents No.1 in all these Revision Petitions, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not delivering possession of the plots agreed to be sold by them, despite having received full consideration therefor, the District Forum had directed all the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally refund to the Complainants the amounts received from them along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization; ₹2,200/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to them and ₹2,200/- as litigation expenses.
4. At the outset, we may note that aggrieved by the said orders, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, namely, Kapil Properties and Subhash respectively, had unsuccessfully preferred Appeals to the State Commission. Being dissatisfied with the dismissal of their Appeals, both the said Opposite Parties brought the matters before this Commission, by filing Revision Petitions, being RP/2891-2894/2016. The said Revision Petitions were dismissed vide order dated 19.2.2017. It is stated by learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants that according to his instructions, the said Opposite Parties had not carried the matter further to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the orders passed by the District Forum against both of them have attained finality.
5. Reverting to the present Revision Petition, the main ground on which the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Fora below is questioned by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that as the Petitioner was not duly served with the notice in the Complaints and had acquired knowledge about these orders only on being served with the non-bailable warrants issued against him in the Execution proceedings, initiated by the Complainants, for enforcement of the afore-mentioned order, the Petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity of presenting his defence before the Fora below. It is asserted that principles of natural justice demand that an opportunity of hearing should be granted to the Petitioner. It is also argued that since the Petitioner was only an Agent of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, he could not be saddled with the liability for non-delivery of the possession of plots to the Complainants.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants, while supporting the orders passed by the Fora below, has referred us to several affidavits filed by the Petitioner in these Revision Petitions as well as in some other connected proceedings, wherein the address mentioned by the Petitioner himself is the same which was mentioned in the Complaints and notices were issued to the Petitioner.
7. Having perused the said documents/affidavits, we are satisfied that the Petitioner was duly served in the Complaints. In so far as the plea of the Petitioner that being only an Agent of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, he cannot be made liable for the acts of omission and commission is concerned, the plea is stated to be rejected. Having himself admitted that he was acting as an Agent of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and was signing some documents on their behalf, he cannot be absolved of his obligation to ensure that the customers introduced by him to the other Opposite Parties are put in possession of the plots allotted to him. Hence, he is equally liable for the consequences of failure of the Opposite Parties in not delivering possession of the plots. Obviously, he had a stake in the transactions between the Complainants and the developers. Though learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants has also produced before us a copy of the agreement, stated to have been executed by the Petitioner herein and attested by the Notary Public on 18.12.2017, wherein while accepting his liability, he had undertaken to settle the dispute with the Complainants but having regard to the fact that the said document was not a part of the record of the Fora below, we deem it unnecessary to comment on the same, in so far as the liability of the Petitioner qua the Complainant is concerned.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference in our limited revisional jurisdiction.
9. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER