IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant cannot pursue two remedies simultaneously.

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Narendra Nath Mishra against the order dated 7.9.2016 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar ( for short, State Commission) passed in F.A. No.158 of 2015.

2. Brief facts are that on the impressive assurances given by the opposite party Smt. Usha Sharma Managing Director of M/s. Vaishnavi Architect &Engg. Pvt. Ltd. and her husband Late Anil Sharma who were engaged in building construction and selling the flats, Petitioner booked three flats alongwith three car parking, one for his wife and two for son giving booking cum advance amount from his own pocket according to need of this married family members in Bimla Tower Punaichak Patna. The builder after receiving due money for the booked flats, left the flats incomplete as well as without providing basic amenities in the flats. The petitioner put pressure on the builder who in turn instructed petitioner to complete flats with an assurance that amount spent in the completing the construction of flats would be reimbursed by the builder to the complainant soon. The petitioner demanded spent amount in construction of flats from the builder Smt. Usha Sharma and her husband who denied to reimburse. The petitioner filed F.I.R. in Shastrinagar Police Station Patna on 15.4.2007. The builder Smt. Usha Sharma and her husband Late Anil Kumar @ Anil Sharma made agreement on 7.2.2008 for payment of Rs.6,75,650/- to the petitioner and Smt. Usha Sharma issued post dated cheque of 20.4.2008 in the name of petitioner and also made agreement with the petitioner for fulfillment of necessary amenities as per PRDA Rules and turn up for registration of flats meant for petitioner wife and son but builder not complied a single term of the written agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner filed complaint petition no.60 of 2009 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Patna ( in short “the District Forum”) on the basis of contract/agreement dated 7.2.2008 as well as on authorization by his wife and son which was dismissed by the learned District Forum on 27.5.2015. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed First Appeal No.158 of 2015 before State Commission which was also dismissed and the order of learned District Forum was affirmed vide order dated 7.9.2016.

3. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record.

5. The learned counsel argued that the fora below have not appreciated the fact that the son and the wife have purchased the flats out of funds of the petitioner and they have given an authority letter to father/the husband/the complainant/petitioner, still the District Forum has decided that the complainant was not a consumer and it has also dismissed the complaint on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. The State Commission has upheld the order of the District Forum and has also dismissed appeal as well as the complaint on additional ground that complaint was not filed before the appropriate Forum having the pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned counsel stated that the only relief of Rs.19,09,172/- was sought in the complaint and therefore the complaint was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was further submitted by learned counsel that Smt. Usha Sharma, Managing Director of Vaishnavi Architect & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was made a party and therefore it is wrong to say that Vaishnavi Architect & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was not made a party. Hence, there was no question of any mis-joinder of parties and the complaint was wrongly rejected on this ground.

6. Apart from these technical points, the learned counsel argued that being husband and father, the complainant had paid all the amounts in respect of the flat booked by the wife of the complainant and two flats booked by the son of the complainant. Later on, when the possession offer was made, the complainant saw that