Delhi High Court
Mr. Satendar Kumar Garg & Ors. vs M/S Perfect Structures (India) ... on 3 December, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 03, 2014
+ RSA 162/2014 & C.M. Nos.11217-11218/2014
MR. SATENDAR KUMAR GARG & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Garg, Advocate
versus
M/S PERFECT STRUCTURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankit Jain & Mr. Sarvesh Rai,
Advocates, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Appellants' suit for rendition of accounts and mandatory injunction
is dismissed by the trial court by holding that there is no privity of
contract between the parties. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the
trial court judgment. The factual narration finds mention in the impugned
judgment and needs no reproduction.
The finding returned in the impugned judgment is as under:-
'The question is that whether there is any fiduciary
relationship between the parties. The defendant no.1 is a
builder who had sold the flat to the plaintiff no.1 vide
registered sale deed. As per the terms of the sale deed, the
maintenance, up keep, repair etc. of the building was to be
RSA NO.162/2014 Page 1
done by the vendor till all the flats were sold. After the sale
of all the flats, the vendor was required to handover the
maintenance to the RWA which was to be formed by the
owners of the flats. The primary contract between the parties
was that of a sale of the property. The defendant no.1 is not
agent of the vendees. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly held
that there is no relationship between the parties in the nature
of trust. Moreover, there is nothing in the sale deed as per
which the defendants were required to render accounts for
the maintenance charges. The finding of the Ld. Trial Court
in this regard is quite elaborate and justified. Appellants
used to pay the maintenance charges to the respondents and
it is not the case of the appellants that the maintenance was
not done properly. There is nothing in the sale deed which
shows that if the respondents have collected excess money
from the residents and utilized lesser amount towards
maintenance, the balance amount was to be refunded or was
to be kept deposited with the respondents."
At the outset, learned counsel for appellants submitted that
regarding the bungling of maintenance charges, appellants be permitted to
approach the concerned Consumer Forum to seek redressal of the
grievances and it be made clear that the findings returned in the impugned
judgment will not stand in the way of appellants to avail of their remedies
before the Consumer Forum and the delay due to pursuing the remedy in
the wrong forum deserves to be condoned.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgments of the courts below,
RSA NO.162/2014 Page 2
I find that appellants were ill advised to seek redressal of their grievances
by filing a civil suit. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
appellants are at liberty to approach the concerned Consumer Forum for
redressal of their grievances and the findings returned in the judgment of
the courts below will not stand in the way of appellants. So far as the
delay aspect is concerned, it is expected that upon appellants filing an
application for condonation of delay, the question of delay would be
considered while keeping in view that appellants were pursuing the
remedy in a wrong forum.
With aforesaid directions, this appeal and applications are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 03, 2014
r
RSA NO.162/2014 Page 3
