Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 06/10/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.68/2009, Manohar S.Pathare v/s.Priyesh Desai, passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘forum’ in short).  The consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service committed by developer and builder, namely, M/s.Priyesh Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. in respect of plot booked by the complainant on 22/01/1991.  Complaint is filed against the appellant/original opponent Mr.Priyesh Desai, who is described as Director of the said developer M/s.Priyesh Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred as ‘Developer’).  Forum was pleased to allow the consumer complaint and gave directions.  Feeling aggrieved thereby original opponent Mr.Priyesh Desai has preferred this appeal.

Heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties.  Undisputedly, though the grievance is against the developer, as could be spelt out from the contents of para 2 and onwards of the complaint, the complaint is not filed against the developer which is a Private Limited company which is a separate and distinct juridic person but only against appellant/opponent no.1-Mr. Priyesh Desai, who is described as Director of said company. Considering definition of ‘person’ as per provisions of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Herein after referred as ‘Act’ for brevity) Mr.Priyesh Desai and developer company are separate and distinct juridic persons.  Realizing this particular difficulty, respondent/complainant moved an application to implead developer company as party on 27/05/2009. Appellant even opposed said application.  However, without deciding said application impugned order came to be passed.  Reliefs as per impugned order are not only granted against impleaded party opponent-Mr.Priyesh Desai, but also against the Developer company which is not a party before it. Thus, the forum committed patent error in law while granting reliefs as per impugned order against the developer company, which is not a party.  The forum ought to have decided the application to implead said developer company as party.  The dispute cannot be settled justly and properly in absence of a developer company.  Both the parties conceded that said application to implead developer company as party remained undecided.  Under the circumstances, we find it proper to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter back to forum so that it could decide the application to implead developer company as party and then settle the dispute according to law after giving both the parties appropriate and proper opportunity. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

                                      ORDER

Appeal is allowed. 

Impugned order dated 06/10/2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to settle the dispute according to law in light of the observations made in the body of the order.

Parties to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 12/07/2011.

Pronounced dated 6^th June, 2011.