Court limited compensation orders to 66 complainants under Consumer Protection Act, rejecting expansion to other apartment owners absent proper legal standing.

1. Original Petition No. 93 / 2004 (Complaint) had been filed by 66 Apartment Owners of Ambience Island against Raj Singh Gehlot and three others before this Commission purporting to be filed under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it stood at the relevant time. This fact could also be seen in Paragraph 1 of the Order dated 19.03.2014 by which Order this Commission decided the Complaint. For ready reference Para 1 of the Order dated 19.03.2014 is reproduced below:-

“The grievance of 66 Flat Owners of Ambience Island Apartment, the complainants, has two prongs against its Builder, Promoter, Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot, who represents Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Firstly, the OPs 1, 2 & 3 did not install the full numbers of Elevators, as promised and piled on the agony of the Flat Owners, by not maintaining the already installed lifts throughout the Apartment Complex and more particularly, in Block Nos. C, E, F and H, by M/s. Scan Elevators, OP4.”

2. While disposing off the Original Petition No. 93 / 2004, this Commission directed that cost of ₹5,000/- to be paid to each of the 66 Complainants. For ready reference Para 35 of the Order dated 19.03.2014 is reproduced below:-

“ 35. The OPs 1, 2 and 3 are directed to maintain the lifts every day, month and year, within a period of 90 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, they are liable to pay penalty of Rs.15,000/- each, for Blocks C, E, F and H, per month. They are directed to maintain the record, in this context. Liability, if any, shall be saddled upon them if there is any accident or mishap. We also impose costs of Rs.5,000/- each, to be paid to each of the 66 complainants, which be paid, within 90 days, else, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a., till realization.”

3. Thereafter Execution Application No. 7 / 2014 was filed by the Decree Holders / Complainants for Execution of the Order, which was disposed off by this Commission vide Order dated 03.11.2015. A plea was raised by the Complainants that the Apartment complex in question has 343 apartments and 340 apartment owners, where most of the owners/Complainants are senior citizens and the said Order dated 19.03.2014 will apply to all the residents as if they were 345 Decree Holders and full amount has not been paid in respect of 345 Residents. This issue was dealt in Para 4 of the Order dated 03.11.2015 and it was specifically mentioned that the relief was granted to 66 Complainants/Decree Holders only and will not apply to persons who have not approached this Commission at all. For ready reference, Para Nos. 4 and 8 of the Order dated 03.11.2015 are reproduced below:

“4. We find considerable force in this argument. The Decree cannot be applicable to strangers. The persons who have not approached this Commission at all, cannot ask for the relief granted to 66 Complainants/Decree Holders only. This is, therefore, made clear that the Judgment Debtors/OPs will pay the amount in respect of 66 Decree Holders/Complainants only.

………….

8. To sum up, it is made clear that the Judgment Debtors/OPs 1, 2 & 3 would pay the decretal amount in respect of 66 persons only and will pay 70% of the total maintenance amount as ordered in the judgment. The applicant stand disposed of.”

R.A. No. 315 / 2015

4. Against the Order dated 19.03.2014 by which the Original Petition No. 93 / 2004 had been decided and the Order dated 01.05.2014 whereby the Review Application No. 74 / 2014 preferred by the Judgment Debtors had been dismissed, Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot and Another, Judgment Debtors approached the Hon’ble Supre