PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned interim order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Miscellaneous Application No.663/2016 filed in Consumer Complaint No.92/2014, vide which, the said Miscellaneous Application was ordered to be dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Complainant/ Respondent filed Consumer Complaint No.92/2014 against the Appellants/Opposite Parties, the Sherwood Officers Society and its office bearers, alleging that the Opposite Parties had failed to handover the property in question to the Complainant, despite payment of a large sum of money to them. The Complainant sought refund of an amount of 20.51 lakhs, along with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of receipt of payments and also compensation on various counts. During the pendency of this Complaint before the State Commission, Miscellaneous Application No.663 of 2016 was filed by the Opposite Parties before the State Commission, saying that they had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s. R.K.M. Housing Private Limited, Mohali, on 15.07.2014 and had transferred the said Project on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding to the said Company. The said Company should, therefore, be allowed to be impleaded as a party in this case. The Complainant opposed this application before the State Commission, saying that she had not given her consent for signing the Memorandum of Understanding between the Opposite Parties and M/s. R.K.M. Housing Private Limited, Mohali.

3. Vide impugned order dated 15.06.2016, the State Commission dismissed the said application, saying that there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and M/s. R.K.M. Housing Private Limited, Mohali, and hence, there were no grounds to implead the said Company as a necessary party in the case. The State Commission also observed that the amount in question had been received from the Complainant Smt. Raj Rani, by the Appellants/Opposite Parties and they had agreed to provide the service, as stated in the Complaint.

4. Being aggrieved against this order of the State Commission, the Appellants/Opposite Parties have challenged the order by way of First Appeal.

5. When the case was taken up for hearing on 21.08.2017, Mr. Ankit Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that they had no objection, if M/s.R.K.M. Housing Private Limited was made a party in the case.

6. In view of the assertion made by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant before us, this Appeal is allowed and the impugned interim order passed by the State Commission, rejecting the Miscellaneous Application No.663/2016 is set aside. The State Commission is directed to implead M/s. RKM Housing Private Limited as a party in the case and take further necessary action in the matter for the disposal of the consumer complaint, in accordance with law. It is made clear, however, that impleadment of the said party in the case shall not imply that the liability of the opposite party society, in terms of the agreement with the complainant, is affected, in any manner. ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER