The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act and its application to determine the status of the complainants.

ORDER :

MR. DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR, MEMBER

1. Complainant No. 2, Mr. Mukul Suryakant Gujar for self and Mrs. Rajni Suryakant Gujar as a power of attorney holder filed a consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponent No. 1 and its partners, opponent No. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).

2. The facts leading to this complaint can be summarised as under:

The complainants initially purchased a plot admeasuring 3.5 Aars from Survey No. 43/2/2, Undri, Pune for consideration of Rs. 18 lacs and accordingly the opponent has executed the sale-deed in the name of the complainants. Again the complainants decided to purchase a plot No. 2 at Survey Nos. 43/2/4/1, 43/1/1/4A/13, 43/1/1/4A/13, 43/1/1/4A/6 and 43/1/2/4 at Undri, Pune of 7000 sq.ft. Accordingly, the MOU was executed on 9.12.2010 and the complainants have paid an amount of Rs. 10 lacs on 29.11.2010, Rs. 10 lacs on 2.12.2010 and Rs. 5 lacs on 12.1.2011. The complainants further stated that they further paid an amount of Rs. 25 lacs on 6.6.2011, 10.6.2011 and 15.6.2011. According to the complainants, they have made payment of Rs. 50 lacs for the plot No. 2 admeasuring 7000 sq.ft. of Undri. According to the complainant, opponents failed to execute sale deed and one of their partners, opponent No. 1(c) became abscond. The opponent No. 1(a) and 1(b) have published notice in newspaper on 15.5.2012 declaring that the opponent No. l(c) is not their partner.

3. Alleging that no executing the sale deed despite of accepting the total consideration amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opponents, the complainants have filed the present consumer complaint praying that the opponents be directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 62,05,000 together with the interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the realisation of the amount or to execute the sale deed of the plot No. 2 admeasuring 7000 sq.ft..

4. Complaint was admitted on 19.11.2013 and the opponents were directed to file their written version. The opponent No. 1(a) and 1(b) have appeared through their Advocate Mr.Vijay Kadam and filed written version for the opponents Nos. 1(a) and 1(b). Opponent No. l(c) was served through paper publication, however, remained absent and hence the complaint was proceeded ex parte against the opponent No. 1(c).

5. The opponent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) have contested the consumer complaint by filing written version that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, unwarranted and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opponent No. 1(a) and 1(b) have stated that the complainants are not consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opponent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) further stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainants and these opponents in the capacity of partners of the opponent No. 1. They have not agreed to render any services to the complainants and complainants are guilty of suppresio vari and suggestio falasi. They further stated that last payment as per the own showing of the complainants was made on 15.6.2011 on which the opponent No. l(c) ought to have executed the sale deed of the piece of land in favour of the complainant. The complainants have filed the consumer complaint on 19.9.2013 after a period of more than two years and hence the complaint is time barred as per the provision of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6. The opponent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) further stated that they are not aware about the alleged transactions between the complainant and the said opponent No. 1(c). The opponent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) further stated that they have issued notice dated 9.5.2013 to the opponent 1(c) for accounts and also issued a public notice dated 15.5.2013 in Marathi daily ‘Sakal’ thereby informing the public at large that the misdeeds of the opponent No. 1(c) and factum of he having absconded by committing serious criminal