IMPORTANT POINT
Principal is liable for acts of omission on part of his power of attorney holder.

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 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 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 the 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