BEFORE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
R.P.No. 45 OF 2015 AGAINST I.A.NO.351 OF 2014 IN C.C.NO.3 OF 2013 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM WARANGAL
Between
K.Manjula W/o Shankar Prasad Rao
Aged 44 years, Occ: Household & Builderf
Of Nikhil’s Inn Apartment
R/o H.No.1-7-1250, Advocates Colony
Balasamudram, Hanamkonda
Warangal District, rep. by her GPA
Holder K.Shankar Prasad Rao
Revision Petitioner/opposite party No.1
A N D
- Nikhil’s Inn Flat Owners Welfare Association
Rep. by its President K.Rajeswara Chary
S/o Veram, Aged 51 years, Occ: Govt. Employee
R/o H.No.1-7-1320/301, Nikhil’s Inn Flat
Advocates Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal Dist.
Respondent/complainant
- The Commissioner,
Warangal Municipal Corporation
Respondent/opposite party no.2
Counsel for the Revision Petitioner Sri Nelson Mathew
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri K.Karunakar
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Served
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
TUESDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This revision petition is preferred by the opposite party no.1 against the order of the Dist. Forum, Warangal in I.A.No.351 of 2014 in allowing the petition by permitting the respondent no.1/complainant to amend the complaint.
2. The second respondent filed compliant in C.C.No. 03 of 2013 against the appellant and respondent no.2 to provide certain amenities which were not provided as promised by the appellant or in the alternative to pay compensation of Rs.20 lakhs.
3. During pendency of the complaint the respondent no.1 filed a petition in I.A.No. 351 of 2014 on 19.06.2015 seeking amendment by incorporating certain paras in the complaint. The District Forum allowed the petition by permitting the respondent no.1/complainant to amend the comlaint for proper and just adjudication of the main CC No.03/2013.
4. Aggrieved by the said order the revision petitioner/opposite party no.1 filed this revision petition contending that though the petition to implead the respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 filed by the respondent no.1/complainant was allowed the respondent no.1/complainant had not taken any steps to include the respondent 2/opposite partyno.2 in the cause title of the complaint. The prescribed period for carrying out the amendment to implead Municipal Corporation Warangal was only 15 days from the date of the order which was already elapsed. The respondent no.1/complainant without adding the Municipal Corporation Warangal he filed I.A.No.351 of 2014 which was allowed by the District Forum. Earlier the respondent no.1/complainant filed the similar petition I.A.No.254 fo 2013 which was dismissed by the District Forum and aggrieved by the said order R.P.No.25 of 2014 was filed before this Commission and the Commission has directed the respondent tno.1 to file a fresh affidavit and petition. Therefore, the revision petitioner prayed to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the District Forum in I.A.No.351 of 2014.
5. Though the respondent no.1 represented the case through counsel but did not file any counter.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
7. The case of the respondent no.1/complainant is that the builder has promised to provide drinking water with municipal water connection, bore well fixed with electric submersible motor, sanitation, drainage, water tanks electrification of the entire apartment, pipe connection to all the flats, providing generator, life, car parking etc. But the appellant/opposite partyno.1 failed to provide most of the amenities. After the filing of the complaint the respondent no.1/complainant came to know that it had missed some paras which are very essential to be added in the complaint and hence he filed the above said I.A.
8. The appellant/opposite party no.1 opposed the said IA contending that the respondent no.1 already filed a petition to implead Municipal Commissioner, Warangal as a party to proceedings which was allowed by the District Forum but the respondent for the reasons best known to it not amended the complaint by adding Municipal Commissioner, Warangal and in that event the time prescribed for amendment of 15 days also elapsed. Without adding Municipal Commissioner as a party in the complaint, the respondent no.1 filed I.A.No.351 of 2014 and the same was allowed by the District Forum.
9. Evidently, the respondent no.1 without adding Municipal Commissioner as a party in the main complaint filed I.A.No.254 of 2013 to incorporate certain paragraphs in the main complaint which were missed in the complaint and the District Forum dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent no.1 preferred R.P.No.25 of 2014 which was allowed by permitting the respondent no.1 to file fresh affidavit before the District Forum and seek the reliefs which it intend to include in the main complaint. In pursuance of the said R.P. the respondent no.1 filed IA 351 of 2014 before the District Forum and the District Forum based on the order passed in R.P.No.25 of 2014 allowed the I.A. Therefore, the District Forum followed the observations made by this Commission and allowed the said I.A. Moreover, no prejudice will cause to the opposite partyno.1 if the respondent no.1 carried out the amendments by incorporating certain paras which were missed in the complaint. We do not know why the appellant taking objections regarding incorporation of the additional reliefs such as unfinished amenities , deviations, use of inferior quality material etc., in fact it will prove the bonafides of the parties. Hence, the said order as such does not suffer from any material irregularity or there is no apparent error on the face of record.
In the result the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated: 08.08.2017
