BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR

                                                                                                                                                                           Complaint  No.153/2024

                                                                                                                                                                           Date of Instt. 26/04/2024

                                                                                                                                                                    Date of Decision: 21/11/2024

Dharam Pal Singh Juttla aged 64 years son of Late Sh.Satnam Singh Juttla resident of 40, Lansbury Drive, Hayes, Middlesex, UB48sb, United Kingdom through his Special Power of Attorney Sh.Akhil Dua son of Sh.Gulshan Kumar, resident of 266, Nijatam Nagar, Backside KGS Palace, Nijatam Nagar, Jalandhar.

                                                                            .......Complainant.......

Versus

Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd. (now known as Shourya Towers Pvt.Ltd.)

78-B, Sectore D-2, Group II, Kondli, Gharoli Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi-110096 also at B-III, Sector-5, Noida, G.B.Nagar, Noida, Uttar Prakesh-201301, through its Directors Anil Jain, Ankur Jain and Ravindra Singh Kasana.

.....Opposite Party......

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj,       (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                      (Member)

Sh.Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

 Present:       None for the Complainant

                   Smt.Harleen Kaur, Adv. Counsel for Opposite Party.

Order :

                   Sh.Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

Application has been filed by the OP for dismissal of complaint alleging that the present complaint is not maintainable for the non-joinder of necessary parties by the complainant. It has been alleged that the flat was alloted to three persons namely, Dharampal Singh Juttla, Salinder Kaur Juttla and Sh.Rajinder Singh Juttla as per agreement Ex.C-4 but other two persons namely Salinder Kaur Juttla & Rajinder Singh Juttla, have not been made party in the present complaint. On this ground only the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP has relied upon Order dated 18.3.2024 of Hon'ble National Commission in a case FA/1382 of 2018 titled as Satinder Singh Vs. Shourya Towers Ltd.

Reply to application has not been filed by the complainant.

We have heard arguments advanced by complainant and gone through the file carefully.The complainant has alleged that he booked an apartment by paying full payment of Rs.13,00,000/- on 15.04.2010 vide receipt No.13975 dated 15.04.2010 to the OP. As per agreement Ex.C-4, the OP has to deliver the apartment by April 2011 with grace period of three months but after availing grace period also OP's could not handover the possession of the apartment to the complainant by July 2011. On 1.5.2022, OP handed over the vacant possession of the flat in question. The complainant came to Commission for compensation of delayed possession.

Perusal of the file shows that the flat buyer agreement is also between Salinder Kaur Juttla, the wife of the complainant and between Rajinder Singh Juttla. There are three Co-allottees as per this agreement. Smt. Salinder Kaur Juttla has expired, as per copy of death certificate Ex.C-5 produced on record, the legal heirs of Smt.Salinder Kaur Juttla nor Rajinder Singh Juttla has not been made a party in the present complaint. The record further shows that the possession letter -cum- NOC as Ex.OP-7 relied upon by the complainant, has been issued by Novena Builders & Developers Pvt.Ltd. and Novena builders has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint whereas it is a necessary party. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a case FA/1382 of 2018 titled as Satinder Singh Vs. Shourya Towers Ltd. in which Hon'ble State Commission held that where there are joint allottees and Power of Attorney has been executed by one of the allottee and other allottee was not made party, the complaint is not maintainable. The Hon'ble National Commission has observed that

"the allotment was made in the name of complainant Satinder Singh and his wife Ranjit Kaur but she has neither been impleaded as a complainant in the present complaint nor her power of attorney has been placed on record, Both are joint allottees. The Hon'ble National Commission has dismissed the appeal on this technical ground only, the same is not to be maintainable.

In the present case, the allotment was made in the names of Salinder Kaur Juttla, Rajinder Singh Juttla alongwith Dharam Pal Singh Juttla. The present complaint has been filed by the Akhil Dua, Special Power of Attorney holder of the complainant. No Power of Attorney has been filed on record on behalf of other allootees in favour of the complainant. Thus as per law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, the present complaint is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Acordingly, the application for dismissal of complaint is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant can avail remedy as per law. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.