Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President & Mr. M.G. Gavai, Member
C.B. SAO—Appellant
versus
THE PRESIDENT,
PANCHATARA GRUHA NIRMAN SAHAKARISANSTHA & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 522 of 1993—Decided on 6.4.1994
The main legal point established is that when a finding of negligence is reached against multiple parties, the operative part of the order should reflect this by making all negligent parties jointly and severally liable for the relevant payment.
Headnote:
Negligence - Service - The court found negligence in the service of both the opposite parties and modified the order to make both parties jointly and severally liable for the payment to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant complained of deficiency in service by the opposite parties, alleging non-execution of a sale deed despite payment for the allotment of a plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a mistake in the operative part of the order, as the finding of negligence was against both opposite parties but the operative part bound only one party. The court modified the order to make both parties jointly and severally liable for the payment to the complainant.
Issues: The issue was whether the operative part of the order should bind both the opposite parties, considering the finding of negligence against both.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the finding of negligence against both parties should reflect in the operative part of the order, making both parties jointly and severally liable for the payment to the complainant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was modified to make both respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the complainant within 30 days.
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Nagpur dated 25.7.91 passed in Complaint No. 220 of 1990. The appellant here was a complainant before the District Forum and alleged deficiency in the service of the opposite parties. There were two opposite parties viz. (1) President, Panchatara Gruha Nirman Sanstha and the Secretary of the same Society. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he had hired the services of opposite parties for the allotment of a plot for a consideration and had actually paid Rs. 18,500/-by instalment. The complainant alleged that despite having made the aforesaid payments the opposite party did not execute the sale deed in his name. The complainant, therefore, .claimed the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment.
2. The opposite party failed to appear before the District Forum and also failed to file their written version in reply to the allegations made by the complainant. The District Forum, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and by the impugned order directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs. 18,625/- to the complainant with interest.
3. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the complainant on the ground that although the finding has been reached by the District Forum about the negligence in the service of both the opposite parties, the operative order is based against the opposite party No. 1 only. In this appeal, therefore, the appellant claimed that while maintaining the finding of negligence on the part of the two parties, the operative part of the order shall be binding on both the opposite parties.
4. We heard the appellant in person whereas the respondent remained absent. On going through the impugned order and after hearing the appellant, we are satisfied that there is mistake in the operative part of the order of the District Forum inasmuch as the finding of negligence has been reached against both the opposite parties but the operative part binds opposite party No. 1 alone. Hence, the finding of the District Forum requires to be modified to the extent that both the opposite parties be made liable for the payment of the aforesaid amount to complainant. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
5. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that both the respondents are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 18,625/- to the complainant with interest jointly and severally to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation.
Appeal allowed.
