CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



REVISION PETITION NO.88/2009 Date of Filing: - 24/06/2009

@ MISC. APPL. NO.1030 OF 2009 (Stay) Date of Order: - 23/07/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.467/2008

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE



State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Management Branch,

2nd Floor, The Arcade,

World Trade Center,

Cuffe Parade, Coloba,

Mumbai – 400 005. ... Applicant/Org.Opposite Party No.2.



-Versus –



1. Shri.Girish Vyankatrao Nalavade,

Residing at – Uttam 2 Apartments,

Flat No.1, Opp.Satguru Garden,
Thane (East) 400 603. ... Opponent No.1/Org.Complainant



2. M/s Shree Ganpatey Developers … Opponent No.2/Org. Opposite 1

Through its Partners : Parties Nos.1 to 4)

i) Shri.Anil K.Revankar,

Residing at : IRIS “B” Wing,

Flat No.1403, Unnati Garden,

Opposite Devdaya Nagar,

Thane (West) – 400 606.

ii) Shri.K.Revankar,

IRIS “B” Wing,

Flat No.802 & 1002, Unnati Garden,

Opposite Devdaya Nagar,

Thane (West) – 400 606.

iii)Shri.Jitubhai Bhanushali,

gulmohar Building, “C” Wing,

Flat No.613, 6th Floor,

Hill Garden Complext, Off.tikuji-ni-wadi,

Kokanipada, Manpada,

Thane (West) – 400 607.

iv) Shri.Geljibhai B.Patel,

Flat No.404 A, 4th Floor,

Ravi Estate, Opp.Devdaya Nagar,

Off.Pokhran Road No.1,

Vartak Nagar, Thane (West) – 400 606.

3. Indian Lead Ltd.

Through its Directors,

Shri.Anil K.Revankar,

Residing at : IRIS “B” Wing,

Flat No.1403, Unnati Garden,

Opposite Devdaya Nagar,

Thane (West) – 400 606. … Opponent No3.



AND

REVISION PETITION NO.89/2009 Date of Filing: - 24/06/2009

@ MISC. APPL. NO.1031 OF 2009 (Stay) Date of Order: - 23/07/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.468/2008

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE



State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Management Branch,

2nd Floor, The Arcade,

World Trade Center,

Cuffe Parade, Coloba,

Mumbai – 400 005. ... Applicant/Org.Opposite Party No.2.



-Versus –

1. Smt.Sangeeta Girish Nalavade,

Residing at – Uttam 2 Apartments,

Flat No.1, Opp.Satguru Gardens,
Thane (East) 400 603. … Oppponent No.1/Org.Complainant



2. M/s Shree Ganpatey Developers … Opponent No.2/Org.Opposite 1

Through its Partners : Parties Nos.1 to 4)

i) Shri.Anil K.Revankar,

Residing at : IRIS “B” Wing,

Flat No.1403, Unnati Garden,

Opposite Devdaya Nagar,

Thane (West) – 400 606.

ii) Shri.K.Revankar,

IRIS “B” Wing,

Flat No.802 & 1002, Unnati Garden,

Opposite Devdaya Nagar,

Thane (West) – 400 606.

iii)Shri.Jitubhai Bhanushali,

gulmohar Building, “C” Wing,

Flat No.613, 6th Floor,

Hill Garden Complext, Off.tikuji-ni-wadi,

Kokanipada, Manpada,

Thane (West) – 400 607.

iv) Shri.Geljibhai B.Patel,

Flat No.404 A, 4th Floor,

Ravi Estate, Opp.Devdaya Nagar,

Off.Pokhran Road No.1,

Vartak Nagar, Thane (West) – 400 606.



3. Indian Lead Ltd.

Through its Directors,

Shri.Anil K.Revankar,

Residing at : IRIS “B” Wing,

Flat No.1403, Unnati Garden,

Opposite Devdaya Nagar,

Thane (West) – 400 606. … Opponent No3.




Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Shri.Harihar Bhave,Advocate for Revisionist.

Opponent/Opposite Party No.1 in person.



- : ORDER :-
Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

1) These Revision Petitions is filed against the order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane,(‘Forum below’ in short), on 23/04/2009 on the application filed by the revisionist for their discharge from the complaints bearing No.467/2008, Girish Nalavade v/s M/s Shree Ganpatey Developers & Others, and 468/2008, Sangeeta Nalavade v/s Shree Ganpatey Developers & Others, Forum below rejected the applications.

2) Since, these revision petitions involve common question of law and identical facts, we are disposing of them by this common order.

3) We heard Mr.Harihar Bhave, Advocate for Revisionist/Org.Opponent No.1 in person. Revisionist did not press the revision petition against other Opponents. Hence, revision petition against them stands dismissed. Purshis filed taken on record.

4) After considering the documents placed before us and after perusing the order dated 23/04/2009, we find that impleading the revisionist is improper and unwarranted considering scope of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in as much as the prayers of the Complainant made in their complaint is concerned, they are against only Org.Opponent No.1 i.e. M/s Shree Ganpatey Developers, no relief is claimed against the revisionist/ Opposite Party No.2.

5) In the instant case Opponent/Org.Complainant-Shri.Girish Vyankatrao Nalavade (hereinafter referred as ‘Complainant’) agreed to purchase a flat from Opponent/Opposite Party No.1- M/s Shree Ganpatey Developers (hereinafter referred as ‘developer’). The development activity for construction of the flat to be sold on ownership basis was undertaken by the developer as per memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the developer, the revisionist and landlord of the property namely Opponent No.3-Indian Lead Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘landlord’). It may be pointed bout that Opponent No.3 the landlord is not a party to consumer complaint bearing No.467/2008 and 468/2008 filed by the Complainant. Referring to letter dated 9th August, 2007 addressed by the flat purchasers including the Complainant to revisionist-bank, it could be seen that before entering into an agreement to purchase the with the developer, the Complainant was fully aware of the triparty arrangement between revisionist-bank, the developer and the landlord as well as the charge created over the property. The consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant claiming relief against the developer for possession of the flat and compensation for delayed possession, compensation for mental pain and harassment as well as the costs. As per averments made in the paragraph 4 of the consumer complaint, a reference is made to the charge of the revisionist-bank and it is submitted that therefore, the bank is joined as “formal and necessary party.” No reliefs however, as earlier mentioned, are claimed against revisionist-bank.

6) Since, the flat agreed to be purchased subject to charge of the revisionist-bank and since, the complainant was fully aware of the same before entering into an agreement to purchase the flat and considering the reliefs which are claimed in the consumer complaint, revisionist-bank is neither necessary nor proper party. The tripartite agreement between the revisionist-bank, the developer and the landlord cannot be challenged in the consumer complaint and it is not so challenged. Considering undisputed facts, presence of the revisionist-bank is not at all necessary to settle the consumer dispute between the developer and the complainant. Forum below did not consider all these aspects properly and arrived at a wrong conclusion. In the circumstances, the order dated 23/04/2009 rejecting discharge application is bad in law and cannot be supported. Hence, we hold accordingly and pass the following order :

: O R D E R :

1) Revision Petitions are allowed.

2) Impugned Order dated 23/04/2009 rejecting the discharge application filed by the State Bank of India/Revision Petitioner is quashed and set aside.

3) The applications for discharge stands allowed. State Bank of India/ Revisionist is discharged from the complaints and its name be struck off accordingly.

4) Misc.Application No.1030/2009 and 1031/2009 for stay stands disposed of,

as infructuous.

5*) No order as to costs.

6 ) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties



(S. P. Lale) (S. R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member



A.J.