Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Vinayak Purshottam Dube (Deceased), Through LRs - Appellant
Versus
Jayashree Padamkar Bhat & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7768-7769 of 2023
Decided On : 01-03-2024
(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 306 – Proprietary and Personal Rights – Maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” (a personal right of action dies with the person) – No right can exist without a corresponding duty – Every right or duty involves a bond of legal obligation by which two or more persons are bound together – There can be no duty unless there is someone to whom it is due – There can be no right unless there is someone from whom it is claimed and there can be no wrong unless there is someone who is wronged, someone whose right has been violated – This is also called a bond of law – It is a tie that legally binds one person to another. (Para 15)
(B) Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 37 and 40 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 50 – Obligation of parties to contracts – A contract can be performed vicariously by legal representatives of promisor depending upon subject matter of contract and nature of performance that was stipulated thereto – But a contract involving exercise of individual’s skills or expertise of promisor or which depends upon his/her personal qualification or competency, promisor has to perform contract by himself and not by his/her representatives – A contract of service is also personal to promisor – Duties or obligations which are personal in nature cannot be transmitted from a person who had to personally discharge those duties, on his demise, to his legal representatives – Just as a right is uninheritable and right personal to him dies with owner of right, similarly, a duty cannot be transferred to legal representatives of a deceased if same is personal in nature – In case of a personal obligation imposed on a person under contract and on demise of such person, his estate does not become liable and legal representatives who represent estate of a deceased would obviously not be liable and cannot be directed to discharge contractual obligations of deceased. (Paras 21, 22 and 27)
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 27 – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 71] – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 50 – Execution of decree – Any decree which is relatable to extent of property of deceased which has come to hands of legal representatives and has not been duly disposed of, same would be liable for execution by a decree holder so as to compel legal representatives to satisfy decree – In this context, even a decree for preventive injunction can also be executed against legal representatives of deceased judgment-debtor if such a decree is in relation to property or runs with property if there is a threat from such legal representatives – Legal representatives of deceased opposite party-appellants are not liable to discharge obligation which had to be discharged by deceased opposite party in his personal capacity – That portion of impugned orders of NCDRC, State Commission and District Forum set aside. (Paras 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Controversy in these appeals is in a very narrow compass. Complainants succeeded before District Forum, State Commission as well as the NCDRC. During pendency of revision preferred by original opposite party before NCDRC, original opposite party died. His legal representatives i.e. his widow and two sons were brought on record. In fact, complainants also had preferred their Revision Petition. NCDRC reasoned that legal representatives of opposite party were liable both with regard to monetary payments that original opposite party was directed to pay and also liable to comply with other directions issued by District Forum as modified by State Commission and thereafter modified by NCDRC.
Findings of Court:
Direction for payments shall be made by legal representatives from estate of deceased opposite party if not already satisfied.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Nagarathna, J.
These appeals have been filed by the legal representatives of the opposite party-sole proprietor against the common final judgment and order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “NCDRC”) in Review Application No.26 of 2017 in Review Petition No.3283 of 2008 and Review Application No.27 of 2017 in Review Petition No.2794 of 2008.
The NCDRC vide the impugned order dismissed the review applications while affirming its earlier order dated 31.05.2016 passed in review petition with reference to the order dated 03.01.2017 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)… CC Nos.24515-24516 of 2016 granting liberty to the appellants to resort to remedy of review before the NCDRC.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
2.1 The appellants herein are the legal heirs of the original opposite party in the consumer complaint before the District Forum. All the respondents herein are the complainants.
2.2 For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as complainants and opposite party.
2.3 The complainants, Jayashree Padmakar and others, owners of property CTS Nos.1465/1 and 1465/2, 'C' Ward, Kolhapur, had entered into a Development Agreement dated 30.07.1996 with the opposite party. According to the agreement, the complainants were entitled to receive eight residential flats and Rs.6,50,000/- as consideration. Allegedly, the opposite party failed to fulfill the payment obligations, resulting in payment of a balance amount and accruing interest at 18% per annum with effect from 01.04.1997. The complainants alleged breaches of the agreement, including deviations from sanctioned plan, non-construction of a compound wall impacting parking and issues regarding access and unauthorized constructions beyond sanctioned plan, subsequently sold to third parties. They also noted defects in the building construction, such as cracks, in the building, terrace work being not completed and the absence of provision for electricity meters. Despite notices issued by the complainants, the opposite party denied the allegations asserting that the complainants owed them Rs.8,60,000/- for construction and amenities.
2.4 Seeking a resolution of the ongoing breaches under the Consumer Protection Act, the complainants pursued their legal recourse to address the deadlock by filing Complaint No.184 of 2005 before the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur. Their prayers for relief were several: they demanded payment of outstanding dues inclusive of interest; reimbursement of expenses incurred and compensation for the mental distress caused to them. Additionally, they sought structural rectification, emphasizing on the removal of unauthorized constructions; rectification of construction defects; completion of pending work and the provision of essential amenities as initially agreed upon.
2.5 In his version, the original opposite party disputed the existence of any consumer relationship, denied breaches and argued for the resolution of contractual disputes through the civil court. The opposite party claimed that the complaint was time-barred and sought its dismissal with compensatory costs of Rs.10,000/-.
2.6 The District Consumer Forum at Kolhapur, vide order dated 16.10.2006, on perusal of various supporting documents, including the Development Agreement, building plans, notices, replies, certificates, estimates, receipts and affidavits partly allowed the Consumer Complaint No.184 of 2005 filed against the opposite party. The District Forum observed that as per the Development Agreement between the parties, the transaction between the parties was not one of sale and purchase of property but of development of property. Since the services regarding construction are covered by the Consumer Protection Act, the dispute was held to be a consumer dispute. Further, the District Forum refused to take into consideration the points raised by the compl
(1) A contract can be performed vicariously by legal representatives of promisor depending upon subject matter of contract and nature of performance that was stipulated thereto.(2) Execution of decre....
The legal representative of a deceased sole proprietor is liable for the debts of the sole proprietor, and the scope of revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC is limited.
A consumer complaint against a deceased individual is not maintainable, and a legal heir cannot be held liable for debts without evidence of a direct transaction or relationship with the complainant.
The amendment to Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC aims to ensure the continuation and culmination of effective adjudication and to prevent the proceedings from coming to an end summarily due to the death....
(1) Execution must strictly conform to decree – A decree cannot, by process of execution, be employed to shift or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were neither parties to decree nor otherw....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
