Full Judgment
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 03, 2014 + RSA1622014 & 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 DECEMBER03 2014 r RSA NO.162/2014 Page 3