Global Vacations Pvt Ltd vs Amarendra Selvan

THIS appeal arises out of the order rendered by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, "the State Commission") in complaint case No. 116/2002.

THE appellants are the original Opposite Party Nos. 4, 5. By the impugned order, the State Commission held them jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to Respondent No. 1 (Complainant).

WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record available in this matter.

SO far as the appellants are concerned, the only grievance put forth by them is that they are totally unconcerned with the transaction between the Respondent No. 1 (Complainant) and the Respondents No. 2 and 3. The appellants submit that there was no privity of contract between them and the Respondent No. 1. They submitted that by no stretch of imagination they could not have been jointly held liable to refund the amount paid by the Respondent No. 1 (Complainant) to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

THE grievance of the complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) was that he purchased right to use Holiday Home of the Respondent No. 2. Such facility was provided to him on payment of Rs .1,30,990, as per scheme published in a brochure issued by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. An agreement was entered into between them on 11.6.1995. The Respondent No. 1 alleged that he desired to avail the holiday resort facility at Tourist Centre of Jagannath Puni in Orissa State but it was of no avail. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not completed the construction of the holiday resort. There was some exchange of notices between them and thereafter he filed the complaint for recovery of the amount along with compensation.

WHAT appears from the record is that the State Commission assumed that the business of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was taken over by the present appellants along with assets and liabilities. The State Commission appears to have drawn such inferences on surmise and hear say basis. The State Commission has observed: "We are told that OP Nos. 4, 5 have taken over the assets and liabilities of OP No. 3. If that were to be the case they are also equally liable to refund the amount, since they have not disputed the fact of taking over the management of Toshali Sand Resorts started by OPs 1 to 3."

AS a matter of fact, there is no documentary evidence or by way of affidavit to show that the appellants had taken over the business of the Holiday resort and that any statement was made before the State Commission in this behalf. One does not know as to who ''told'' the State Commission that the appellants had taken over the assets and liabilities of the original OP No. 3. Though it appears that Mr. G. Ravindran, Advocate had appeared in this matter before the State Commission, yet the record does not show that the appellants were represented by any lawyer much less Mr. G. Ravindran. Advocate. It is amply clear, therefore, that the State Commission recorded such findings without verification of any record as well as without proper verification of any statement of authorised person or the Advocate. The contention of the appellants was that they only entered the same premises where the office of the Respondent No. 3 was situated, as subsequent-tenant

TAKING overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there was no liable evidence to enter any privity of contract between the appellants and Respondent No. 1 (Complainant). Therefore, the appellants could not be held liable to refund the amount to the Respondent No. 1 (complainant). Hence, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order to the extent of the liability of the appellant. We also make it clear that in case of execution proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, if the Respondent No. 1 (complainant) will adduce sufficient evidence to infer assignment of rights and liabilities in favour of the appellants by the original Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 then the executing Court will be at liberty to take appropriate steps for the purpose of recovery against the appellants, as the charge for the refund of the amount will be on the property of the original OP Nos. 1 and 2. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No cost. Appeal allowed.