Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 18th March, 2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.120/2007, Vilas Ananda Bhosale V/s. M/s.Sankalp Constructions through its Partners (1) Shri Prabhakar Pandurang Bhosale & Anr., Passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (‘the Forum’ in short). (2) It is the case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/original Opponents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’) for not handing over the possession of the flat which the Complainant agreed to purchase for `3,00,000/- as per agreement dated 29.06.2005. The consumer complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby the original Complainant has preferred this appeal. (3) Initial agreement to sell of flat is not disputed but it is submitted that said agreement is multi-party agreement and the other parties to the agreement are not impleaded to the consumer complaint hence the consumer complaint as filed would not lie. It is also submitted on behalf of the builder that the agreement in question since the Complainant became defaulter stood terminated on 12.10.2006 and the Complainant was informed accordingly by a letter sent under certificate of posting. Therefore, on the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26th July, 2007, their being no subsisting relationship as a consumer and service provider between the parties to the complaint was liable to be dismissed. (4) The Forum upheld the contention of the builder and also observed that the Complainant came with a false statement about the actual payment made and further dismissed the consumer complaint, supra. (5) Heard both sides. Perused the record. The original Agreement dated 29.06.2005 is in between M/s.Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Magaswargiya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Dhanori, Pune through its Secretary Sunil Anant Kamble, as party of the first part; M/s.Sankalp Construction of the Second Part; and Vilas Ananda Bhosale a member of the Society, party of the third part; M/s.Trinity Town Development And Finance Private Limited, as a party of the Fourth Part. Thus to this Agreement there are five parties. The Complainant Vilas Ananda Bhosale (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’) is a party of the third part being the member of first party M/s.Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Magaswargiya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society). The rights and the obligations of the parties inter se are spelled out in the said agreement. It is categorically mentioned in the said agreement that Complainant Vilas Ananda Bhosale as a member of the Society applied to the builder and the Society for accommodation in new scheme launched by the Society and the Sankalp Constructions. Amount agreed was to be paid directly to the builder by the Complainant. The payment mentioned per Clause-2 of the said agreement was correlated with the progress of the construction work. The clause 2.2 speaks for interest on amount due and termination of the agreement on default. Said clause gives right to the builder to terminate the agreement in accordance with the procedure viz. if the Complainant commits any default. The Society described as an organization of flat purchasers from the building. The conveyance is to be executed in favour of the Society and the Complainant as a purchaser of the flat also recorded his no objection, if any changes or modifications are made in the draft, by-laws, as could be required by the competent authority/Society – M/s. Sankalp Constructions. (6) As per the receipt produced on record it appears that Complainant - Vilas Ananda Bhosale has paid `70,000/- on 16.05.2006 vide receipt No.139 to the builder. Other two receipts viz. receipt no.581 dated 01.06.2005 stands in the name of Rohidas Keru Wagmare, while the receipt no.571 dated 19.05.2005 also stands in the name of said Rohidas Keru Wagmare and they do not pertain to the Complainant. No other proof for payment of any additional consideration is available from record. (7) It is the case of the builder that since the complainant remain in arrears and failed to pay the amount due in spite of repeated demands, they ultimately had no option but to cancel the agreement, which they did as per letter dated 12.10.2006. Copy of the said termination letter along with certificate of posting of the said letter are placed on record, which corroborates the case pleaded and confirmed by the witnesses in their respective affidavits filed behalf of the Respondent – Sankalp Constructions. (8) Considering the overall circumstances, it can be seen that the action of the builder terminating the contract cannot be held as arbitrary. If it is so, on the date of filing of the consumer complaint their being no subsisting relationship as a consumer and the service provider between the Complainant and the builder, the consumer complaint would not lie. The Complainant may have a civil remedy which, of course, subject to the relevant provision of law which he may pursue. (9) As earlier pointed out, all the parties to the Agreement are not made parties to this consumer complaint, particularly, the Society is not made party. As revealed from the facts stated at Bar, the Society at one point of time also resolved asking its members including Complainant to pay the charges as per revised rate. Therefore, Society undoubtedly has some say towards the terms/its modifications relating to the transaction under consideration and thus, non-joining the Society or absence of the Society from the scenario would not make it possible to settle the consumer dispute in question justly and properly. (10) For the reasons stated above we find the ultimate dismissal of the consumer complaint cannot be faulted with and hence, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Pronounced on 23rd February, 2012. | 
