VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRs [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. JAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS [RESPONDENT(S)]
(CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7768-7769 OF 2023)
(2JB, B.V. NAGARATHNA and UJJAL BHUYAN JJ., delivered by NAGARATHNA, J.)
Facts: The present 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 whereby it 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 granting liberty to the appellants to resort to remedy of review before the NCDRC.
Issue: Whether the legal representatives of the deceased are liable to discharge the obligation which had to be discharged by the deceased opposite party in his personal capacity?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants as the legal representatives of the deceased opposite party are willing to make the payment as directed. But as far as the other set of the directions are concerned, it is not permissible for them to comply with them inasmuch as the said directions were issued by the District Forum as well as the State Commission personally against the opposite party who is since deceased. Those directions are with regard to construction of compound wall so as to give separate access in terms of Schedule II of the Development Agreement; to obtain and handover completion certificate to the complainants-respondents; to execute the conveyance deed and to give electricity connection and such other directions.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:
Learned counsel for the complainants– respondents submitted that no doubt the legal representatives of the original opposite party would comply with the directions for payments from out of the estate of the deceased opposite party but the complainants would be left high and dry insofar as the other obligations which had to be discharged by the opposite party and therefore, the NCDRC was justified in directing the legal representatives of the deceased opposite party to take steps for also complying with those directions.
Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “the legal representatives of the deceased opposite party-appellants herein are not liable to discharge the obligation which had to be discharged by the deceased opposite party in his personal capacity and hence that portion of the impugned orders of the NCDRC, State Commission and District Forum are set aside. Needless to observe that the direction for payments shall be made by the legal representatives from the estate of the deceased opposite party if not already satisfied.”
