In view of these facts, we find that no deficiency against the opponent/developer/builder can be alleged as there is no privity of contract between the opponent/builder/developer and the complainant in respect of sale of flat together with parking lots. There is no merit in the consumer complaint.”

“23. The builder does not deny that upon issuance of the endorsement letter, the purchaser not only stepped into the shoes of the original allottee but also became entitled to receive possession of the flat. There is no denial that the purchaser fulfils the description of the complainant/consumer and is entitled to move any forum under the Consumer Protection Act for any deficiency in service. The question then is whether a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to similar treatment as the original allottee, and can be denied relief which otherwise the original allottee would have been entitled to, had she or he con