PATRICK GONSALVES Vs. HAVEN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Complaint No.30 of 1999, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji - Goa, by its order dated 16.10.2003, partly allowing the complaint, directed Respondents No.1 and 2 (building developers) to refund a sum of Rs.14,12,500/- to the Complainants, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 6.5.1997 till the date of payment and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for inconvenience and suffering caused to them, with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. It was also ordered that if the amount was not paid within two months from the date of the communication of the order, Respondents No.1 and 2 would be liable to pay the sum with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. However, the State Commission dismissed the complaint against Respondents No.3 and 4, who were the subsequent purchasers of the flats from the developers, holding that they are not liable to refund the amount. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the direction of the State Commission, the Complainants have filed Appeal No.820/2003 praying that: (i) Respondent Nos 3 and 4 shall also be made liable to pay compensation as awarded by the State Commission, along with Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and (ii) allow the appeal with costs.

(2.) THE Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Builders) have also filed Appeal No.858/2003 with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. BRIEF FACTS:

(3.) ON 21.12.1999, Respondents No.1 and 2 filed written statement wherein it was disclosed that flats were in possession of Respondent No.3 vide Sale Agreement dated 28.9.1999 executed by him with Respondent No.3 and that the Agreement with the appellants was terminated vide letter dated 21.9.1999. It is contended that the fact of Assignment Deed dated 25.1.1999 was suppressed by Respondent No.4 On 17.1.2000, appellants moved an application for impleading Respondents No.3 and 4 as necessary parties. It is submitted that Mr.P.R.Hede is the Director of Respondents No.3 and 4, which are sister concerns. It is also pointed out that in a pending Civil Suit for injunction, Respondents No.3 and 4 have stated that additional alterations were made in the flats and were converted them into a hotel project.