State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahindra Gesco Developers Ltd. vs Rupinder Singh Oberoi on 22 November, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 22.11.2010 First Appeal No. FA-09/256 (Arising out of Order dated 11.2.09 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Delhi) Mahindra Gesco Developers Ltd. Appellant UGF, The Great Eastern Plaza, 2-A, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. Versus 1. Shri Rupinder Singh Oberoi Respondents S/o Shri Manmohan Singh Oberoi, B-6/55, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-29. 2. Ms. Tejinder Kaur Oberoi W/o Rupinder Singh Oberoi, B-6/55, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-29. 3. M/s. Gulab Farms(P) Ltd. 21/48, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi. 4. M/s. Sweet Peas Farms(P) Ltd. 21/48, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi CORAM: Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Ms. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral)
1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint against the three OPs (i) M/s. Gulab Farms (P) Ltd., (ii) M/s. Sweet Peas Farms(P) Ltd. & (iii) Mahindra Gesco Developers Ltd., with a prayer that the OPs be directed to refund the transfer charges, and to pay him compensation alleging deficiency on part of the OPs in the light of an agreement dated 31.3.03 executed between the complainants/purchasers and seller OP-1 & 2 with regard to purchase of apartment in Central Park, Sector-42, Gurgaon, Haryana to be developed by OP-1 & 2, for consideration of Rs. 48,86,925/-. Pursuant to this agreement, a sale deed was executed by OP-1 & 2 in favour of the complainants with regard to the said apartment.
2. The complainants allegation in his complaint was that the transfer charged Rs. 5,66,800/- recovered from, be refunded to him by the OP besides the compensation of Rs. 1 lac, for the reason that the administrative charges, which the OPs had allegedly charged from the complainant. The complainant impleaded OP-3 in the complaint alongwith the other two OPs because he was the attorney of OP-1 & 2, and had executed the agreement on their behalf.
3. OP-1 & 2 filed the written statement while OP-3 M/s. Mahendra Gesco Ltd. filed an application before the District forum with a prayer that his name be deleted from the array of the parties, alleging that he was impeaded by the complainant as an agent being attorney of OP-1 & 2 and there was no privity of contract between him and the complainants, and OP-1 & 2 being his principals were already on record.
4. The District Consumer forum vide order dated 11.2.09 rejected the application of OP-3. That is what brings OP-3 in appeal before this commission.
5. We have heard Shri Vikas Dhawan, counsel for the appellant and Shri Harsh Virmani for respondent-1 & 2 and Srishti Singh, counsel for OP-3 & 4.
6. It will be noticed that appellant(OP-3) in the case is the developer of the land, and the project manager. He is as such real executor. The OP-1 & 2 may have signed the sale deed as owners, but the man behind the scene, who holds the strings is the appellant(OP-3). It is OP-3 with whom the original agreement was made. As such, even if the sale deed was not executed by OP-3, merely because the ownership lay with OP-1 & 2, it cannot be said that he is completely a outsider, and has nothing to do with the controversy in question.
7. The guiding principle is that if there is some doubt about the question, whether a person should be made a party to the proceedings or not, the court should usually decide in favour of retaining the person as a party. The reason is that, when after all facts have been unfolded, and at the time of hearing, it is found, that the person concerned was a necessary or proper party, whole exercise will have to be restarted, while on the other hand if it is found at the final stage that the person in question was not a necessary party, he can be exonerated.
8. The order for deletion of a party at the initial stage has to be passed only in cases, where prima facie and per se, the party in question is completely outsider, and has nothing to do with the case, and the court therefore feels that he should not subjected to the tribulations of a trial. This is not the case here. The appellant made the initial agreement with the complainant which ultimately led to the sale deed. He is the developer and the project manager. It cannot therefore be said at this stage that he is not a necessary or a proper party.
9. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
10. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
12. Announced on 22nd day of November, 2010.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member ysc