IMPORTANT POINT
When the land owners enter into an agreement with the builder for developing their land, they are liable to sign the conveyance deed along with the builder as confirming parties.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The petitioner along with her sister Smt. Sukhla Roy Barman owned a piece of land measuring 10 Chittacks 14 sq. ft. at Mouza Sultanpur Police Station Dum. They execute a power of attorney in favour of Shri Debajit Banik in respect of the aforesaid land. Thereafter, a tripartite agreement was executed on 19.5.2014 between the complainant Mr. Swapan Kumar Aich, the respondent No.2 Gems constructions represented by its sole proprietor Mr. Debajit Banik and the petitioner and her sister represented by Shri Debajit Bank as their attorney. In the terms of the said agreement, a residential unit admeasuring 1400 sq. ft. was to be constructed by Gems construction on three floors on the aforesaid land and sold to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.18,20,000/-. It would also be pertinent to note here that a Development Agreement had been separately executed on 08.2.2013 between the petitioner and her sister on one hand and GEMS constructions on the other hand for development of the land owned by the petitioner and her sister. The possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant within fourteen months. Since the flat was not delivered to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading GEMS Construction and the petitioner as parties to the said complaint. The petitioner contested the complaint and claimed that she had no connection with the transaction between the complainant and the builder M/s. GEMS Constructions. She also claimed that she was not the necessary party to the complaint and therefore, her name should be deleted from the array of the parties.

2. The District Forum vide its order dated 06.3.2017, directed the builder GEMS Construction to deliver possession of the flat on receiving the balance sale consideration from the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum and electric meter charges. The builder was also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation. The name of the petitioner was deleted from the array of parties.

3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12.9.2018, the State Commission directed the petitioner and her sister to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant as confirming parties. The builder M/s. GEMS construction however did not challenge the order passed by the District Forum.

4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the land in question was owned jointly by her as well as by her sister Smt. Sukhla Roy Barman, only she was impleaded as a party to the complaint and therefore, the complaint was bad for misjoinder of parties. In my view, such an objection can come only from the sister of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot take such a plea. It is an admitted position that a power of attorney was executed jointly by the petitioner and her sister in favour of the builder. The agreement with the complainant was a tripartite agreement which the builder had executed on his behalf as well as the attorney of the petitioner and her sister. Therefore, the complainant became consumer not only of the builder but of the petitioner and her sister as well. The builder has not challenged the order of the District Forum directing him to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant. Of course, the complainant is also entitled to execution of the requisite conveyance deed in his favour. Being the land owners, the petitioners and her sister must execute the conveyance deed as confirming parties. If the sister of the petitioner has a grievance on account of she also having been directed to execute the sale deed, without she having been impleaded as a party to the consumer complaint, it is for her to challenge the impugned order on this ground. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she being a co-owner of the land, must neces