KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.09/2020

ORDER DATED: 28.10.2022

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. V.K. Prathapachandran)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          This revision is filed by the 2^nd opposite party in C.C.No.516/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short), challenging an order 18.12.2019 in I.A.No.107/2018.  I.A.No.107/2018 was filed by the Revision Petitioner for striking off their name from the party array of the C.C.  According to them they are an unnecessary party to the complaint.  However, the said petition has been dismissed by the District Commission.  They are aggrieved by the said order.  The 1^st respondent herein is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the 1^st opposite party.

          2.       The 2^nd respondent is the builder.  The 1^st respondent/complainant alleged that he had purchased two flats, one having an area of 589 sq.ft. and another having an area of 250 sq.ft. from the 2^nd respondent.  The 2^nd respondent collected an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) per flat, as deposit.  According to the construction agreement, Flat Owner’s Association Deposits, Electric Connection charges & Deposits, Water Connection charges and deposits etc are to be paid in proportion to the undivided share.  Therefore, according to the 1^st respondent he is liable to pay only an amount of Rs.3,050/-(Rupees Three Thousand Fifty) towards KSEB deposit for the flat with
589 sq.ft. area and Rs.762.50/- for the flat with 250 sq.ft. area.  The 2^nd respondent had collected an amount in excess of what is stipulated in the construction agreement.  The 1^st respondent therefore, demanded return of the balance amount.  He was then informed by the 2^nd respondent that since the Apartment Owner’s Association had been formed the entire balance amount was transferred to the Revision Petitioner.  It was against the said stand taken by the 2^nd respondent that the complaint was filed by the 1^st respondent.  According to him, he is entitled to return of an amount of Rs.46,950/-(Rupees Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty) in respect of his flat having 569 sq.ft. area and an amount of Rs.11,837.50/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred and Thrity Seven and Fifty paise) in respect of the flat having 250 sq.ft. area.  Interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint till date of realisation has also been claimed.  The amounts have been claimed from the 2^nd respondent as well as the Revision Petitioner.

          3.       The Revision Petitioner has filed version in the complaint.  According to them, they are not the legal successors of the 2^nd respondent builder.  There was no service provider – consumer relationship between the Revision Petitioner and the 1^st respondent.  There is also no deficiency in service alleged against the Revision Petitioner.  According to them, they are not a necessary party to the proceedings before the District Forum.  Therefore they had filed I.A.No.107/2018 for an order removing them from the party array of the complaint.  It is the said petition that has been dismissed by the order under revision. 

          4.       This revision was admitted on 19.02.2020.  Though notices have been served on both the respondents, only the 1^st respondent has responded by filing objections.  There has been no representation for either the Revision Petitioner or the respondents from 04.08.2022 onwards.  Since the Lower Court Records are available we have perused the records.

          5.       It is not in dispute that the Revision Petitioner herein is the Apartment Owner’s Association formed in accordance with the terms of the construction agreement entered into between the parties.  The 1^st respondent has claimed the return of certain amounts paid by him to the builder.  According to the builder he has transferred the funds to the Revision Petitioner.  Therefore, while adjudicating the claim of the 1^st respondent it is necessary that the Revision Petitioner is also made a party to the proceedings.  Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner has filed version and is contesting the matter.  For a full and proper adjudication of disputes on the merits, it is necessary that the Revision Petitioner is also on the party array.  Therefore, the order of the District Commission is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.  We do not find any error of jurisdiction warranting an interference with the same in revision.

          This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL