The appellants, who owned a specific piece of land, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Glandstone Mahaveer Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.2) to develop the land and construct residential flats. In conjunction with this agreement, the appellants executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney on July 6, 2013, granting the builder authority over the property. Based on these documents, Respondent No.2 entered into sale agreements with several complainants seeking residential units.

The complainants filed a series of complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against both the appellants and Respondent No.2. They argued that both parties engaged in unfair trade practices and exhibited a deficiency in service by failing to complete the construction and provide possession of the promised units.

The Maharashtra State Commission reviewed the case and ruled in favor of the complainants. It held the appellants and Respondent No.2 jointly responsible for completing the construction and providing possession of the flats. The Commission ordered the appellants to compensate each complainant for physical and mental harassment, as well as to cover the costs of executing sale deeds.

Dissatisfied with the State Commission's ruling, the appellants appealed to the NCDRC. However, the NCDRC upheld the lower court's decision. It clarified that the Joint Venture Agreement and Power of Attorney were still in effect at the time the agreements with the complainants were made, despite the appellants' claims of revocation. The Commission pointed out that the appellants had not taken any legal action against Respondent No.2 for alleged non-compliance with the JVA, and thus could not escape responsibility.

The NCDRC emphasized the necessity of protecting consumer interests in real estate transactions. The court noted that accepting the appellants' argument would lead to significant injustice for the consumers who had invested their money based on the assurances provided by both the appellants and Respondent No.2.

This ruling serves as a pivotal reminder of the responsibilities landowners bear in joint ventures, particularly in real estate. By reaffirming the principles of joint liability, the NCDRC not only upheld consumer rights but also clarified the legal obligations of parties involved in such agreements. The outcome reinforces the importance of accountability in real estate transactions, ensuring that consumer interests are safeguarded against unfair practices.