Akshay & Anr. vs Aditya & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

29 August 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3642-3646 of 2018

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma

Citation

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 847 : 2024 INSC 657

Acts & Sections

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Issue for consideration

Appellants-landowners executed a Joint Venture Agreement and an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the Respondent No.2-builder for the development of the land and construction of flats. Respondent No.2 entered into sale agreements with the complainants-respondents for the units in question. Complaints filed by the respondents against the appellants and Respondent No.2 inter alia for declaration that they were guilty of deficiency in service and were jointly and severally liable to complete the construction as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties and put the complainants in possession of the properties after completing the construction as also to execute the registered sale deeds in respect thereof. Complaints allowed by the State Commission. Order upheld by NCDRC. Whether the appellants were bound by the acts of the Respondent No.2 carried out pursuant to the irrevocable Power of Attorney till it was terminated.

Headnote

Consumer Dispute – Deficiency in service – Non-compliance of the terms and conditions of Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) by Respondent No.2-builder – Appellants-landowners and the Respondent No.2-builder, if were jointly and severally liable as held by State Commission and upheld by NCDRC: Held: Yes – Though allegedly the power of attorney was revoked by the appellants by the letter of revocation, the JVA was not revoked and it continued to be in force – In the revocation letter, the appellants had stated to be not liable “Henceforth”, i.e after the said letter was sent – Thus, the appellants were bound by the acts/deeds of the Respondent No.2 carried out pursuant to the irrevocable Power of Attorney till it was terminated, in accordance with law – Appellants liable for the acts of Respondent No.2 – Judgment of NCDRC not interfered with. [Paras 8, 9]

Judgment 1. This set of five Appeals arises out of the common Judgment and Order dated 28-11-2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (here-in-after, referred to as “NCDRC”) in First Appeal Nos.1664-1668 of 2017, whereby the NCDRC has dismissed the said Appeals filed by the present appellants challenging the Judgment and Order dated 10-7-2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (here-in-after, referred to as “State Commission”) in a Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 2015. 2. The appellants – herein are

View Subscription Plans →