AKSHAY & ANR.versusADITYA & ORS.

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

                        Akshay & Anr.
                              v.
                        Aditya & Ors.
           (Civil Appeal Nos. 3642-3646 of 2018)
                        29 August 2024
 [Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

                    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.

                           Headnotes†
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Held: Yes – Though allegedly the power of attorney was revoked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]
848                                                           [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                                  List of Acts
       Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                               List of Keywords
       Consumer Dispute; Joint Venture Agreement; Power of attorney;
       Irrevocable power of attorney; Landowners; Development of
       the land; Construction of flats; Deficiency in service; Jointly and
       severally liable; Power of attorney revoked; Revocation letter;
       “Henceforth”.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3642-3646
       of 2018
       From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2017 of the National
       Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in FA Nos.
       1664-1668 of 2017

                           Appearances for Parties
       Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv., R. Mohan, V. Balaji, Asaithambi MSM, B.
       Dhananjay, S. Devendran, Limrao Singh Rawat, Rakesh K. Sharma,
       Advs. for the Appellants.
       Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Piyush Singhal, Bijnender Singh, Praveen
       Swarup, Alekhya Shastry, Ms. Arundati Mukherjee, Ms. Amita Singh
       Kalkal, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Advs. for the Respondents.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     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.
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                          849

                       Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors.


2.   The appellants – herein are the owners of the land in question. They
     entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Respondent No.2 –
     Glandstone Mahaveer Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for the development of
     the land and for construction of flats as mentioned herein. It appears
     that the appellants also executed Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated
     6-7-2013 in favour of Respondent No.2 with regard to the said land.
     The Respondent No.2 on the basis of the said documents, entered
     into the sale agreements with the respondents – complainants for
     the units in question.
3.   The respondents – complainants filed the complaints before the ‘State
     Commission’ under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
     against the present appellants and Respondent No.2 seeking inter
     alia the declaration that the present appellants and the Respondent
     No.2 were jointly and severally involved in the unfair trade practices
     and were guilty of deficiency in service, that they were jointly and
     severally liable to complete the activities and construction as per the
     terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties and put the
     complainants in possession of the properties mentioned in Schedule
     ‘D’ after completing the construction as also to execute the registered
     sale deeds in respect thereof.
4.   The ‘State Commission’ after considering the pleadings of the parties
     allowed the said complaints. The ‘State Commission’ holding opponent
     Nos.1 to 3 (the present appellants and Respondent No.2) liable
     for the completion of the construction of dwelling units as per the
     agreement with the complainants and passed the following order:-
           “i.    The complaints as referred Nos. CC/15/85, CC/15/86,
                  CC/15/99, CC/15/100 & CC/15/111 are partly allowed.
           ii.    The OP Nos. 1,2&3 to provide the possession of the
                  dwelling unit agreed in Agreement to Sell (SA) with
                  each complainant in the span of six months from
                  the date of the receipt of copy of this order and the
                  complainants to pay the entire consideration of the
                  dwelling unit as per the stages and the final amount
                  at the time of sale deed and possession as per the
                  agreement.
           iii.   The OP Nos. 1,2,&3 after completion of construction
                  of dwelling units as per agreement to sell & on
850                                                            [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                   receiving full consideration as per agreement as
                   above, shall execute sale deed of respective dwelling
                   units as per agreement to respective complainant.
                   The complainants shall bear expenses for execution
                   and registration of sale deeds.
            iv.    The O.P. Nos.2&3 to cooperate with O.P. No.1 in the
                   compliance of trhe agreement signed by the O.P.
                   No.1 with the complainants as per the conditions of
                   the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and (Irrevocable
                   Power of Attorney (IPA).
            v.     The O.P. No.1 to provide the compensation of
                   Rs.1,00,000/- to each of complainant for physical
                   and mental harassment in the span of one month
                   from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on
                   failure, to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. upon it,
                   till the final payment.
            vi.    The O.P.No.1 to provide the cost of Rs.10,000/- to
                   each of the complainant in the span of 30 days from
                   the date of the receipt of copy of this order & on
                   failure to pay interest upon it at the rate of 9% p.a.,
                   till final payment.
            vii.   No order against O.P.No.4
            viii. Copy of the order be provided to both the parties,
                  free of cost.”
5.     Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appellants, preferred
       the First Appeals before the `NCDRC’, which came to be dismissed
       by the `NCDRC’ vide the impugned common order holding as under:-
            “8. The State Commission have brought out in their order
            that the Joint-Venture Agreement (JVA) and the Irrevocable
            Power of Attorney (IPA) were prepared on 06.07.2013. As
            per condition No.15 of the said agreement, the builder had
            been given the authority to sell the constructed Units on
            the property. The IPA also authorised the OP-1 builder to
            execute the registered sale deeds etc. and receive the
            consideration. The State Commission, further, observed
            that the present appellants/OP-2 and 3 had issued notice,
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                            851

                      Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors.


           by which they claimed that they had cancelled the JVA
           and the IPA. However, the said notice was issued on
           12.08.2014, which was much after the agreement made
           by the OP-1 with the complainants. The State Commission
           concluded that at the time of the agreement between the
           builder and the complainants, the JVA and IPA were very
           much operative. It is evident, therefore, that the appellants
           cannot wash their hands off from the matter, as it would
           result in grave injustice to the complainants consumers.
           9. At the time of hearing also in these appeals, the learned
           counsel for the appellants was asked that in case the plea
           taken by them in the appeals were accepted, how shall
           it be possible to safeguard the interests of the consumer,
           who had invested in the said project, after looking at the
           agreement between them and the OP-1 builder. However,
           no satisfactory reply could be given by the appellants on
           that score. It is made out, therefore, that the interests of
           the complainants/ consumers shall be heavily jeopardised,
           if the plea of the appellants/OP-2 and 3 is accepted.
           10. The appellants have referred to the orders made by the
           Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, Faqir Chand Gulati
           vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 345
           and in the case, Sunga Daniel Babu vs. Sri Vasudeva
           Constructions & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 429, in support of
           their arguments before the State Commission as well as
           this Commission. I, however, agree with the contention of
           the State Commission that these two judgments are not
           applicable in the present cases. In the said judgments, it
           was concluded that a landowner, who was supposed to
           be provided a portion of the devloped property after the
           development made by the builder, was a consumer vis-a-
           vis the builder. The issue in the present case is, however,
           different, as the present complaints have been filed by
           the complainants against the builder as well as the land
           owners/appellants. The orders made by the Hon’ble Apex
           Court are, therefore not applicable in the present cases.
           11. From the discussion above, it is held that the appellants/
           OP-2 and 3 landowners cannot be allowed to escape their
852                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            responsibility/role in the matter of providing relief to the
            complainants/consumers in terms of the impugned order
            passed by the State Commission. It is held, therefore, that
            the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality,
            irregularity or jurisdictional error of any kind and the
            same is upheld. The present appeals are ordered to be
            dismissed in limine.”
6.     It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior counsel – Mr.
       Kailash Vasdev that the appellants had already revoked the Power
       of Attorney executed by them in favour of Respondent No.2, by the
       letter of revocation dated 12-8-2014, coupled with Public Notice of
       the same date and hence the appellants could not be held liable
       for any act done by Respondent No.2, who had allegedly entered
       into agreements with the complainants. He also submitted that
       the Complaints as such are not maintainable under the Consumer
       Protection Act against the appellants, who were not privy to the
       agreement between the Respondent No.2 and the complainants.
       However, the learned Senior counsel – Mr. Siddhartha Dave for the
       Respondent No.2 submitted that the said respondent is still ready to
       honour the JVA entered into by the appellants and Respondent No.2
       and ready to complete the construction work with the cooperation of
       the appellants. He further submitted that the Irrevocable Power of
       Attorney was executed by the appellants in favour of Respondent
       No.2 after receiving consideration of Rs.1.51 Crores, pursuant to
       which, the Respondent No.2 had entered into the agreement with
       the complainants.
7.     The learned Senior counsel – Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan drawing the
       attention of the Court to the alleged letter of revocation dated 12-8-
       2014, submitted that even as per the said letter, the appellants had
       stated that they could not be liable for the acts of the Respondent
       No.2 “henceforth” meaning thereby after the said letter, however,
       the Respondent No.2 had entered into the agreement with the
       complainants i.e consumers prior to the said letter and pursuant to
       the JAV executed between the appellants and Respondent No.2,
       which has not been cancelled so far.
8.     Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Senior
       counsels for the parties, and to the impugned Judgments and
       orders passed by the `State Commission’ as well as the `NCRDC’, it
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                        853

                        Akshay & Anr. v. Aditya & Ors.


     clearly transpires that undisputedly an irrevocable power of attorney
     dated 6-7-2013 was executed by the appellants in favour of the
     Respondent No.2 along the JAV of the same date, pursuant to which
     the Respondent No.2 had undertaken to develop the land in question.
     It further appears that though allegedly the said power of attorney
     was revoked by the appellants vide the letter dated 12-8-2014,
     the JAV has not been revoked so far and the same still continues
     to be in force. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
     respondents, in the letter daeted 12-8-2014, the appellants had stated
     to be not liable “Henceforth”, i.e. after the said letter was sent. The
     appellants therefore 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. It is also not denied that
     the appellants have not taken any action whatsoever against the
     respondent No.2 with regard to the alleged non-compliance of the
     terms and conditions of JAV by the said Respondent. Under the
     circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to say
     that the appellants are not liable for the acts of Respondent No.2.
9.   The ‘NCDRC’ having considered all the issues with regard to the
     joint liability of the appellants as well as the Respondent No.2, we
     do not find any good ground to interfere with the same.
10. In that view of the matter, the Appeals being devoid of merits and
    are dismissed.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey