We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 15.5.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.96/2018, which has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner and has affirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the District Forum”).  It is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 had made payment of more than ₹5,00,000/- for purchase of a plot admeasuring 108 sq.yd. with Respondents No.2 and 3.  It appear that subsequent to the payment being made, the present Petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Respondents No.2 and 3 on 13.1.2015 whereby the project rights, including complete land rights with sales, marketing, execution of agreement to sell and development of plots/units were given.  However, in Clause 9 of the said MoU, it was mentioned that the sale amount received by Respondents No.2 and 3 herein from those intending allottee(s), as specifically mentioned in Annexure-C of the MoU, who do not wish to retain their plots/units in the said project, then it will be the sole responsibility of refunding the amount shall be on Respondents No.2 and 3 and Petitioner shall not be liable.  Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that as Respondent No.1/Complainant had not accepted the plot and asked for refund, the liability is that of Respondents No.2 and 3 and not of the Petitioner.  The submission is totally misconceived.  On a reading of Clause 9 of the MoU, which is reproduced below, specifically deals with a case where after a developed plot is offered to the already intending allottees and if they refuse, only then there would be responsibility of Respondents No.2 and 3 and not of Petitioner. 

“9.        That the sale amount received by the FIRST PARTY from those intending allottee(s), as mentioned in “Annexure-C” of this MoU, who do not wish to retain their Plots/Units in the said PROJECT, then it will be the sole responsibility of the FIRST PARTY to either refund them or adjust that amount in any of their (FIRST PARTY) other projects.  Under no circumstances the SECOND PARTY will be responsible for the amount received from those intending allottee(s), as mentioned in “Annexure-C” of this MoU, who do not wish to retain their Plots/Units in the said PROJECT.”

Admittedly in the present case, Respondent No.1 had not refused to take the developed plot in the project under consideration and therefore no benefit or advantage can be derived by the Petitioner from Clause 9 of the MoU.  His further submission is that there was no privity of contract between Respondent No.1 and the Petitioner, on the basis of the MoU signed by Respondents No.2 and 3 and the Petitioner. 

        It is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 had made payment of more than ₹5,00,000/- for a plot of land admeasuring 108 sq.yd. to Respondents No.2 and 3 and if Respondents No.2 and 3 have transferred the entire land rights with sales, marketing, execution of agreement to sell and development of plots/units till possession to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has stepped into the shoes of Respondents No.2 and 3 and shall be liable for all the actions done by Respondents No.2 and 3.  That being the position, this submission has no force and is rejected.

        Further, the State Commission had dealt with the entire material and evidence on record and has recorded a categorical finding that the Petitioner is liable to pay the amounts and compensation, as claimed by Respondent No.1, the order of the State Commission does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, which warrants interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

        The Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.