R. Satyanarayana, petitioner herein, was opposite party No.5 before the District Forum. 

M/s.Srirama Builders, on its behalf as well as on behalf of its partners, who were opposite parties No.1-4 and 6, entered into an agreement with the owners of the land to build 60 apartments as per specifications provided in Schedule B of the agreements.  The apartments were to be completed within 18 months from the date of the agreement.  Gangadhar Apartment Flat Owners Association (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the complaint alleging therein that cost of each flat was to be paid by the flat owners to the promoters against the receipts issued by the promoter.  Apart from the cost of construction, the promoters collected Rs.5,000/- towards parking area which was paid by all the members of the Association.  Promoters had agreed to pay Rs.400/- per month towards damages in case the promoters failed to hand over the possession of the flats within the stipulated period.  After putting up part of construction, the promoters entered into a Deed of Authorization with the petitioner contractor authorizing him to receive payment by issuing official receipts from 12 members of the Association whose names are mentioned in the Deed of Authorization.  Petitioner entered into separate Performance Agreements dated 10.9.1994 with 8 members of the complainant Association to complete the construction of separate flats within 8 months from the date of the agreement.  One such Performance Agreement entered into by the petitioner with Smt. T.Nagamani has been placed on record (at Pg.48 of the paperbook).

According to the complainant, the promoters had agreed to provide municipal water and bore-well for daily use.  As per the agreement entered into between the promoters and the owners of the land, the flats were to be constructed by the year 1992.  Since the promoters failed to deliver the possession and carryout the construction till the end of 1994.  Dispute arose between the parties regarding erection of an L.T. Transformer as well as for supply of water from the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

          After filing of the complaint, the opposite parties got installed the L.T. Transformer.  The only dispute which remains between the parties is regarding the supply of water for which Hyderabad Municipal Corporation had demanded Rs.3,55,572/-.  The flat owners paid the sum of Rs.3,55,572/- and got the individual water connections.  After making the said payment, complainant filed the complaint for recovery of the amount of Rs.3,55,572/- along with the amount of compensation totaling to Rs.4,90,472/-. 

Promoters, i.e., opposite parties No.1-4 and 6, remained ex parte before the District Forum.  Petitioner contractor, which was opposite party No.5, filed its written statement contending that there was no written contract or agreement between him and the President of Gangadhar Apartment Flat Owners Association and since there was no privity of contract between him and the Association, complaint filed against him by the complainant was not maintainable.  It was further stated that he was not a partner of Srirama Promoters.

          Parties were allowed to lead their evidence.  District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner opposite party No.5 to pay Rs.97,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month failing which the said amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Complaint against opposite parties No.1-4 and 6 was dismissed.

          Petitioner accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file any further appeal. 

Complainant, Gangadhar Apartment Flat Owners Association filed an appeal before the State Commission seeking entire amount for which the complaint had been filed. 

State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.3,55,572/- incurred by the complainant for obtaining separate water and drainage connections.  Rs.50,000/- were awarded as per estimate prepared by the Advocate Commissioner for not providing items 1, 6-11 while constructing the building.  Damages of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as costs awarded by the District Forum were affirmed.  No relief was granted against opposite parties 1-4 and 6.  Relief was granted only against the petitioner.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant, the complaint against the petitioner was not maintainable.  The agreement, if any, was entered into between the promoter and the owners of the land.  Petitioner’s agreement was with Srirama Promoters, who, if at all, could claim any relief against him but not the complainant with whom he did not have any privity of contract.  Counsel for the respondent admits that Gangadhar Apartment Flat Owners Association had not entered into any agreement with the petitioner.  Even between Gangadhar Apartment Flat Owners Association and the original promoter, no agreement had been entered into.  The only agreement entered into was between the promoters and the owners of the land.  Counsel for the respondent relying upon the Deed of Authorization given by Srirama Promoters and Builders to the petitioner, authorizing him to collect the money from 12 of the flat owners and complete the work, contends that the petitioner was bound to provide the facilities which the promoter had agreed to provide.  Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon Clause 15 of the Deed of Authorization, which reads as under :

“15. Municipal Water Connection :  A municipal water connection shall be provided.”

          From this he wants to infer that the water connection was to be provided by the petitioner and since the petitioner failed to do so, he is obliged to reimburse the complainant for the cost incurred by them for getting the connection from the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation after paying Rs.3,55,572/-.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

          Admittedly, there was no agreement entered into between the petitioner and the complainant, Gangadhar Apartment Flat Owners Association.  In the absence of any contract/agreement entered into between the complainant, Gangadhar Apartment Flat Owners Association and the petitioner, the complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner was not maintainable.  The complaint, if at all, could be maintainable against Srirama Promoters and Builders.  Complaint against Srirama Promoters and Builders was dismissed by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission.  Complainant has not filed any Revision Petition against the order of the State Commission seeking any relief against Srirama Promoters and Builders, against whom the complaint had been ordered to be dismissed.  In the absence of any Revision Petition filed by the complainant/respondents, no relief can be granted to it against Srirama Promoters and Builders.  The fora below have clearly erred in allowing the complaint against the petitioner.  Question of deficiency in service did not arise as no right and obligation had been created between the petitioner and the complainant.

Although we have held that the complaint against the petitioner was not maintainable but paradoxically we have to uphold the order passed by the District Forum wherein the petitioner has been fastened with the liability of paying Rs.97,000/- because the petitioner accepted  the order passed by the District Forum and did not challenge the same by filing the appeal before the State Commission.  The order of the District Forum as against the petitioner has attained finality in the absence of any appeal having been filed by the petitioner.  Accordingly order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.

          Petitioner is directed to comply with the order passed by the District Forum within 6 weeks after adjusting any amount already paid, failing which, petitioner would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.