Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This appeal is field by the original Opponent no.2 against the judgement and award passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Satara in Consumer Complaint No.212/2007 on 17.11.2007.  By the said judgement and award the Opponent No.2 has been directed to give possession of ownership of Flat constructed on City Survey No.319/B, Mouje Karad, Shukrawar Peth Corporation admeasuring 650 sq.ft. carpet area on first floor to the Complainants Shri Parag Subhash Agashe and Shri Amol Subhash Agaseh without taking any consideration and to execute sale deed in their favour.  The Forum also directed Opponent no.2 to pay costs of `1,000/- and compensation for mental agony of `1,000/- to both the Complainants, if he fails to give possession of the Flat Opposite Party is directed ultimately to pay interest on amount of `4,77,000/- @9% per annum from next month till payment is actually made.  Aggrieved by this order the original Opponent no.2 has filed this appeal.

(2)                Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

The Complainants were owner of building situated on City Survey no.319/B admeasuring 218.5 sq. meters.  It was an ancestral property which came in the hands of Complainants.  They decided to construct ownership flats on the said plot.  They had sold the land to Opponent no.1, but he could not develop the property.  Hence, Opponent no.1  told that he was giving plot for development to Satish Sureshchandra Sarada, the Opponent no.2/Appellant herein.  Opponent no.2 ultimately carried the construction, but Opponent no.2 did not give possession of the flat to the Complainants.  Hence, they sent registered notice to both the Opponent nos.1 and 2, but, since possession of the flat was not given by executing sale deed they filed consumer complaint against both the opponents, claiming possession of the flat besides they claimed amount of `15,000/- being compensation for mental harassment and `10,000/- as for expenses.

(3)                Opponent no.1 filed written statement and admitted that there was sale deed of plot between him and the Complainants.  He also admitted that he had sold the said plot to Opponent no.2 with the consent of Complainants by executing sale deed.  As per sale deed there was an agreement whereby a flat of 650 sq.ft. carpet area was agreed to be given free of costs to the Complainants.  The said agreement according to Opponent No.1 is binding on opponent no.2.  He pleaded that Opponent No.1 is not concerned with anything.  He was not guilty of deficiency of service of any kind towards Complainants because he had not developed property and sold it to Opponent no.2.

(4)                Opponent no.2 in his written statement denied the allegations made by Complainant.  According to Opponent no.2 there is no relationship as consumer and service provider between them.   The agreement entered into between Complainants and him is bad in law.  It cannot create any rights in favour of Complainants.  Shri Santosh Sarada and Smt.Arati Sarada both had purchased the property from Opponent no.1 and therefore, there was no direct agreement between Opponent no.2 and Complainants.  The Consumer complaint as filed by the Complainants is not tenable in law.  At the most, he pleaded that Complainant should knock the doors of Civil Court for any relief and consumer complaint as filed is not tenable in law.

(5)                On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record the District Forum was pleased to allow complaint as against Opponent no.2 and directed him to give a flat on first floor having carpet area of 650 sq.ft. to the Complainants at Shukrawar Peth, Karad and also to give separate entry to the said flat to the Complainants and execute sale deed free of consideration in favour of the Complainants and also directed to pay `1,000/-  as cost of the proceeding and `1,000/- compensation for mental harassment or else to pay interest on `4,77,000/- to the Complainants in lieu of the flat and as such Shri Satish Sureshchandra Sarda, Opponent no.2 has filed this appeal.

(6)                We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.Oak for the Appellant and Mr.Dhanraj Rananavare, Advocate for Respondnet nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Dhiraj Shinde, Advocate for Respondent no.3.   We perused the order and the documents of record.

(7)                By the registered sale deed dated 25.02.2004 said Shri Parag Agashe and Shri Amol Agashe  had sold their own plot of land to Narayan Raghunath Tilak for the consideration of `8,24,000/-.  Then said piece of land or plot of land was sold by Narayan RaghunathTilak by registered sale deed dated 04.03.2005 to Smt.Aarti Santosh Sarda & Shri Satish Sureshchandra Sarda for the consideration of `9,00,000/-.  When these two sale deeds are supported by consideration, we are of the view that relying on separate agreements entered into, initially between Parag Agashe and Amol Agashe and Narayan Tilak on 26.02.2004,  Complainants cannot claim free of cost a Flat in addition to the consideration of plot paid by Narayan Tilak to Parag Agashe and Amol Agashe.  Likewise by the subsequent agreement entered into between Parag Agashe and Amol Agashe on the one hand and Aarati Santosh Sarda and Satish Sureshchandra Sarda on the other.   Complainants, Agashe brothers cannot get flat of  650 sq.ft. in the building constructed by Shri Satish Sureshchandra Sarda and Aarati Santosh Sarda  free of costs without consideration, simply because there was previous agreement to this effect between Parag Agashe and Amol Agasehe on the one hand and Narayan R. Tilak on the other.  We reiterate that these agreements are without consideration.  Under Indian Contract Act, agreement must be supported by consideration.  If there is no consideration agreement is void.  This is laid down in Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act.  What is pertinent to note is the fact that while selling initially the said plot to Mr.Narayan Tilak, the Complainants herein had executed registered sale deed in favour of Mr. Narayan Tilak on 25.02.2004.  On the same date separate agreement was recorded on stamp paper of `100/- whereby Narayan R. Tilak agreed to provide to the Complainants (original owners of the plot in question) that he would provide them flat on the first floor on the building to be constructed by him having carpet area of  650 sq.ft.  This was collateral agreement between Agashe brothers and Narayan R. Tilak executed on 26.02.2004.  It was on stamp papers.  It was not registered agreement on the same day.  Both Agashe brothers executed sale deed duly registered in favour of Narayan Tilak and in that registered sale deed dated 25.02.2004 purchaser had paid consideration of `8,24,000/- to Agashe brothers, the Complainants and Respondent nos.1 and 2 in this appeal.  So, registered sale deed is supported by payment of consideration.  It is binding on the parties and once registered sale deed is there, there cannot be subsequent agreement on the same date like the one executed on 26.02.2004 on stamp paper of `100/- wherein Narayan Tilak allegedly agreed to provide free of costs one flat to the Complainants Shri Parag Agahse and Shri Amol Agashe voluntarily without consideration.  As such that collateral agreement being not supported by consideration is void and cannot be taken cognizance of to pass any award or decree based on such agreement.  Such agreement itself is sham agreement having no force in law since it is without consideration.

(8)                Same can be said about the agreement subsequently entered into on the stamp paper of `100/- dated 07.03.2005.   It was executed by Satish Sureshchandra Sarda in favour of  Parag Subhash Agashe and Amol Subhash Agashe.  While executing this agreement whereby Shri Satish Sureshchandra Sarda allegedly agreed to provide free of costs one flat to the Complainants no consideration had passed.  Thus, it cannot be acted upon.  It is void under section 25 of the Indian Contract Act and this Agreement is not executable in our view because it is without consideration.  Agreements which are void cannot be enforced in law.  What is pertinent to note is the fact that on 04.03.2005 Shri Aarati Santosh Sarada and Shri. Satish Surehchandra Sarada paid `9,00,000/- and purchased by registered sale deed plot from Shri Narayan Raghunath Tilak by sale deed dated 04.03.2005.  So far as second sale deed is concerned consideration was paid by Smt.Aarati Santosh Sarda and Shri Satish Sureshchandra Sarda to Mr.Narayan Tilak.  This is subsequent sale deed in respect of the said plot which was initially owned by original Complainants which they sold for consideration initially to Narayan Tilak and Narayan Tilak, in turn had sold the said plot for `9,00,000/- to Shri Sureshchandra Sarada and Smt.Arati Sarada.  As far as agreement dated 07.03.2005 is concerned, independently executed only by Satish Sureshchandra Sarda in favour of Parag Agashe & Amol Agashe, again we find that this agreement was without any consideration and based on this agreement Complainant had filed consumer complaint and it was erroneously allowed by the Forum below.  There was no consideration for the agreement dated 07.03.2005 executed by Satish Sureshchandra Sarda in favour of Parag Agashe & Amol Agashe.  So such agreement was void and it could not vest any right in Agashe brothers to file any complaint to get any award or any decree from competent Court.  We therefore find that the order passed by the District Forum, Satara is bad in law and cannot be allowed to be sustainable in law and therefore, appeal will have to be allowed quashing and setting aside the said award.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)          Appeal is allowed.

       (ii)          Order passed by District Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.212/2007 is quashed and set aside.

     (iii)          Consumer Complaint stands dismissed.

     (iv)          Parties are left to bear their own costs.

       (v)          Inform the parties accordingly.