ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER WELFARE AND AID versus GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 25-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
897
ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER WELFARE AND AID
v.
GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 259 of  2019)
MARCH 25, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Party: Deletion of name from array of parties – In the instant
case, the appellant-Association representing the buyers filed
consumer complaint seeking diverse reliefs including the grant of
possession of flats to the allottees of the real estate project and
restraining the respondents from charging additional amount for
alleged increase in the area of the flats otherwise than in accordance
with the allotment letters – The case of the appellant before the
National Commission was that the second respondent was in fact
the main promoter of the project and that it was vested with the
primary responsibility of completing the project – In the complaint,
the second respondent was arrayed as opposite party No. 1, while
the first respondent was opposite party No. 2 – National Commission
directed deletion of second respondent from array of parties and
admitted complaint only against the first respondent on the ground
that the consumers in the complaint did not hire or avail the services
of the said party and therefore were not its consumers –  Whether a
direction for the deletion of the second respondent was warranted
– In the counter affidavit which was filed in these proceedings, the
second respondent stated that the first respondent was set up as a
special purpose vehicle by a  consortium of which the second
respondent was a part and that a construction agreement was
entered into between the first and second respondents – Held:  It is
not possible for the Court to conclude at this stage that the second
respondent was unconnected with the project or was impleaded as
a party to the proceeding without any reason or basis – The issue
as to whether, and if so, what relief can be ultimately granted in the
consumer complaint is a matter which has to be determined during
the course of the hearing of the complaint – Consequently, on the
basis of the averments contained in the complaint as well as on the
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 897
897
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
material placed on the record by the second respondent, an order
for deletion was not warranted at this stage – The second respondent
is restored as a party to the proceedings before the National
Commission – Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:  At the present stage, the limited issue with which
this Court is concerned is whether a direction for the deletion of
the second respondent was warranted.   On the basis of the
material on record, it is not possible for the Court to conclude at
this stage that the second respondent was unconnected with the
project or was impleaded as a party to the proceeding without
any reason or basis. The second respondent is accordingly
restored as a party to the proceedings before the NCDRC. The
complaint shall stand admitted against both the first and second
respondents for final disposal. [Paras 9, 11, 13][900-G; 902-B;
D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 259 of
2019
With
Civil Appeal No. 1501 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2018 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in  Consumer
Complaint No.1616 of 2018
Avi Tandon, Anish Agarwal, Omar Waziri, Ms. Vanshika Gupta,
Ms. Meghna Tandon,  Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra  Advs. for the Appellant.
Dhananjai Jain, George Thomas, Dhananjay, Nakul Dewan, Arush
Khanna, Ms. Nooreen Sarna, Lakshay Mehta, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
Civil Appeal No. 259 of 2019
1. Admitted.
2, By the impugned order dated 31 July 2018, the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 directed that the second
respondent (Three C Universal Developers Private Limited) be deleted
from the array of parties. The complaint has been admitted only against
Granite Gate Properties Private Limited, the first respondent to the present
appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
899
3. The only ground on which the above directions have been issued
are spelt out thus:
“The consumers on whose behalf this complaint is instituted did
not hire or avail the services of opposite party No. 1 and therefore,
they cannot be said to its consumers.”
4.  Notice was issued in these proceedings on 7 January 2019.  A
counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent whi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.