Supreme Court of India
Akshay vs Aditya on 29 August, 2024
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
1 REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 657 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.3642-3646/2018 AKSHAY & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS ADITYA & ORS. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T
1. This set of five Appeals arises out of the common
Judgment and Order dated 28-11-2017 passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi (here-in-after, referred to as “NCDRC”) in First
Appeal Nos.1664-1668 of 2017, whereby the NCDRC has
dismissed the said Appeals filed by the present
appellants challenging the Judgment and Order dated
10-7-2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur
(here-in-after, referred to as “State Commission”) in a
Consumer Complaint No.85 of 2015.
2. The appellants – herein are the owners of the land in
question.
Signature Not Verified They entered into a Joint Venture Agreement
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2024.09.04
with Respondent No.2 – Glandstone Mahaveer Infrastructure
16:38:06 IST
Reason:
Pvt. Ltd. for the development of the land and for
2
construction of flats as mentioned herein. It appears that
the appellants also executed Irrevocable Power of
Attorney dated 6-7-2013 in favour of Respondent No.2 with
regard to the said land. The Respondent No.2 on the basis
of the said documents, entered into the sale agreements
with the respondents – complainants for the units in
question.
3. The respondents – complainants filed the complaints
before the `State Commission’ under Section 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the present
appellants and Respondent No.2 seeking inter alia the
declaration that the present appellants and the
Respondent No.2 were jointly and severally involved in
the unfair trade practices and were guilty of deficiency
in service, that they were jointly and severally liable
to complete the activities and construction as per the
terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties and
put the complainants in possession of the properties
mentioned in Schedule `D’ after completing the
construction as also to execute the registered sale deeds
in respect thereof.
4. The `State Commission’ after considering the
pleadings of the parties allowed the said complaints. The
3
`State Commission’ holding opponent Nos.1 to 3 (the
present appellants and Respondent No.2) liable for the
completion of the construction of dwelling units as per
the agreement with the complainants and passed the
following order:-
“i. The complaints as referred Nos.CC/15/85,
CC/15/86, CC/15/99, CC/15/100 & CC/15/111 are
partly allowed.
ii. The OP Nos.1,2&3 to provide the possession of
the dwelling unit agreed in Agreement to Sell
(SA) with each complainant in the span of six
months from the date of the receipt of copy of
this order and the complainants to pay the entire
consideration of the dwelling unit as per the
stages and the final amount at the time of sale
deed and possession as per the agreement.
iii. The OP Nos.1,2,&3 after completion of
construction of dwelling units as per agreement
to sell & on receiving full consideration as per
agreement as above, shall execute sale deed of
respective dwelling units as per agreement to
respective complainant. The complainants shall
bear expenses for execution and registration of
sale deeds.
iv. The O.P. Nos.2&3 to cooperate with O.P. No.1
in the compliance of trhe agreement signed by the
O.P. No.1 with the complainants as per the
conditions of the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA)
and (Irrevocable Power of Attorney (IPA).
v. The O.P. No.1 to provide the compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- to each of complainant for physical
and mental harassment in the span of one month
from the date of receipt of copy of this order
and on failure, to pay interest at the rate of 9%
p.a. upon it, till the final payment.
vi. The O.P.No.1 to provide the cost of
Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainant in the
span of 30 days from the date of the receipt of
copy of this order & on failure to pay interest
upon it at the rate of 9% p.a., till final
4
payment.
vii No order against O.P.No.4
viii Copy of the order be provided to both the
parties, free of cost.”
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
appellants, preferred the First Appeals before the
`NCDRC’, which came to be dismissed by the `NCDRC’ vide
the impugned common order holding as under:-
“8. The State Commission have brought out in their
order that the Joint-Venture Agreement (JVA) and
the Irrevocable Power of Attorney (IPA) were
prepared on 06.07.2013. As per condition No.15 of
the said agreement, the builder had been given the
authority to sell the constructed Units on the
property. The IPA also authorised the OP-1 builder
to execute the registered sale deeds etc. and
receive the consideration. The State Commission,
further, observed that the present appellants/OP-2
and 3 had issued notice, by which they claimed that
they had cancelled the JVA and the IPA. However,
the said notice was issued on 12.08.2014, which was
much after the agreement made by the OP-1 with the
complainants. The State Commission concluded that
at the time of the agreement between the builder
and the complainants, the JVA and IPA were very
much operative. It is evident, therefore, that the
appellants cannot wash their hands off from the
matter, as it would result in grave injustice to
the complainants consumers.
9. At the time of hearing also in these appeals,
the learned counsel for the appellants was asked
that in case the plea taken by them in the appeals
were accepted, how shall it be possible to
safeguard the interests of the consumer, who had
invested in the said project, after looking at the
agreement between them and the OP-1 builder.
However, no satisfactory reply could be given by
the appellants on that score. It is made out,
therefore, that the interests of the complainants/
consumers shall be heavily jeopardised, if the plea
of the appellants/OP-2 and 3 is accepted.
5
10. The appellants have referred to the orders made
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, Faqir
Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,
(2008) 10 SCC 345 and in the case, Sunga Daniel
Babu vs. Sri Vasudeva Constructions & Ors., (2016)
8 SCC 429, in support of their arguments before
the State Commission as well as this Commission. I,
however, agree with the contention of the State
Commission that these two judgments are not
applicable in the present cases. In the said
judgments, it was concluded that a landowner, who
was supposed to be provided a portion of the
devloped property after the development made by the
builder, was a consumer vis-a-vis the builder. The
issue in the present case is, however, different,
as the present complaints have been filed by the
complainants against the builder as well as the
land owners/appellants. The orders made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court are, therefore not applicable in
the present cases.
11. From the discussion above, it is held that the
appellants/OP-2 and 3 landowners cannot be allowed
to escape their responsibility/role in the matter
of providing relief to the complainants/consumers
in terms of the impugned order passed by the State
Commission. It is held, therefore, that the
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality,
irregularity or jurisdictional error of any kind
and the same is upheld. The present appeals are
ordered to be dismissed in limine.”
6. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior
counsel – Mr. Kailash Vasdev that the appellants had
already revoked the Power of Attorney executed by them in
favour of Respondent No.2, by the letter of revocation
dated 12-8-2014, coupled with Public Notice of the same
date and hence the appellants could not be held liable
for any act done by Respondent No.2, who had allegedly
entered into agreements with the complainants. He also
submitted that the Complaints as such are not
6
maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act against
the appellants, who were not privy to the agreement
between the Respondent No.2 and the complainants.
However, the learned Senior counsel – Mr. Siddhartha Dave
for the Respondent No.2 submitted that the said
respondent is still ready to honour the JVA entered into
by the appellants and Respondent No.2 and ready to
complete the construction work with the cooperation of
the appellants. He further submitted that the Irrevocable
Power of Attorney was executed by the appellants in
favour of Respondent No.2 after receiving consideration
of Rs.1.51 Crores, pursuant to which, the Respondent No.2
had entered into the agreement with the complainants.
7. The learned Senior counsel – Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan
drawing the attention of the Court to the alleged letter
of revocation dated 12-8-2014, submitted that even as per
the said letter, the appellants had stated that they
could not be liable for the acts of the Respondent No.2
“henceforth” meaning thereby after the said letter,
however, the Respondent No.2 had entered into the
agreement with the complainants i.e consumers prior to
the said letter and pursuant to the JAV executed between
7
the appellants and Respondent No.2, which has not been
cancelled so far.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
Senior counsels for the parties, and to the impugned
Judgments and orders passed by the `State Commission’ as
well as the `NCRDC’, it clearly transpires that
undisputedly an irrevocable power of attorney dated
6-7-2013 was executed by the appellants in favour of the
Respondent No.2 along the JAV of the same date, pursuant
to which the Respondent No.2 had undertaken to develop
the land in question. It further appears that though
allegedly the said power of attorney was revoked by the
appellants vide the letter dated 12-8-2014, the JAV has
not been revoked so far and the same still continues to
be in force. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel
for the respondents, in the letter daeted 12-8-2014, the
appellants had stated to be not liable “Henceforth”, i.e.
after the said letter was sent. The appellants therefore
were bound by the acts/deeds of the Respondent No.2
carried out pursuant to the irrevocable Power of Attorney
till it was terminated, in accordance with law. It is
also not denied that the appellants have not taken any
action whatsoever against the respondent No.2 with regard
8
to the alleged non-compliance of the terms and conditions
of JAV by the said Respondent. Under the circumstances,
it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to say
that the appellants are not liable for the acts of
Respondent No.2.
9. The `NCDRC’ having considered all the issues with
regard to the joint liability of the appellants as well
as the Respondent No.2, we do not find any good ground to
interfere with the same.
10. In that view of the matter, the Appeals being devoid
of merits and are dismissed.
…………………………………………J
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
………………………………………………….J
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI
29TH AUGUST, 2024.
9
ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.14 SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos.3642-3646/2018
AKSHAY & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ADITYA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 29-08-2024 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAFor Appellant(s)
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. Mohan, Adv.
Mr. V. Balaji, Adv.
Mr. Asaithambi MSM, Adv.
Mr. B. Dhananjay, Adv.
Mr. S. Devendran, Adv.
Mr. Limrao Singh Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Piyush Singhal, Adv.
Mr. Bijnender Singh, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.
Alekhya Shastry, Adv.
Ms. Arundati Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR
Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RThe Appeals being devoid of merits and are dismissed, in terms
of the signed Reportable Judgment.
(VISHAL ANAND) (MAMTA RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)