Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President — This appeal has been filed by Shri Rajinder Jain, defendant against the order of the District Forum dated 2nd March, 1990/16th March, 1990 directing him to refund Rs. 58,254/- with interest @24% per annum from 1st July, 1988 till the date of payment and also to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as damages to the complainant.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant entered into an agreement to buy an air-conditioned flat known as RAN-114 A @ Rs. l,460/- per square feet with M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. He paid 95% of the total amount to the Company and had a greed to pay the balance amount as and when it was demanded by them. It is alleged that the defendant did not air-condition the building nor they constructed a revolving restaurant on the top of the building as they had represented, when he purchased the flat. In the circumstances it was prayed that the respondent be directed to pay Rs. 99,500/- as damages. The District Forum passed the order as stated above.

3. It was inter-alia pleaded by the defendant that the complaint was not maintainable against him. It was denied that there was any promise made to build revolving restaurant in the agreement with the Company. Regarding the air- conditioning of the building it was pleaded by the defendant that it was subject to payment of additional charges for air- conditioning of the building and subject to availability of the electricity.

4. The learned District Forum, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties passed the decree as mentioned above. The defendant has come up in appeal, against the said order of the District Forum, to the Commission. It is contended by Mr. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the agreement was entered into not between the parties but between the complainant and M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. Therefore, the complaint was maintainable against M/s. Raj Sudha Towers and not against the appellant. He further contends that in this situation no decree could have been passed against the appellant.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments. We have seen the agreement and the receipts which have been issued to the complainant- respondent regarding payment of the amount by him. From the said documents, it is evident that the complainant entered into agreement with M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. and not with M/s. Rajinder Jaina. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. should have been impleaded as a defendant.

6. Mr. Mehta next contends that the complaint should have been dismissed as the remedy of the complainant was against M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd., and not against the appellant.

7. We have duly considered the matter. It has been already mentioned above that M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd., should have been impleaded as a defendant. Rajinder Jaina, appellant, it is not disputed, is a Director of the said Company. It is on this account that the complainant filed the complaint against him. Consumer Protection Act is a piece of socia1 legislation and has been enacted to protect the consumer. Therefore, we are not inclined to dismiss the complaint on this ground against the appellant. At the request of the complainant, we allow him to amend the complaint and implead M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd., as defendant No. 2. He shall be entitled to make all consequential amendments in the complaint which will become necessary on impleading M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. as a party therein.

8. After impleading M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. as a party, the matter shall have to be decided afresh after giving parties an opportunity to lead evidence.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeal, set-aside the order of the District Forum and remand the case to it for deciding the matter afresh. No order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 31st May, 1991. O