BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
RP 26 of 2013 against IA 55/2013
in CC 59/2013, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between:
1) The President
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84
2) The Secretary
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Petitioners/
Ops. And
Smt. G. M. Sundara Valli
W/o. Christopher
Flat No. 812/912
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Respondent/
Complainant.
RP 27 of 2013 against IA 56/2013
in CC 58/2013, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between:
1) The President
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84
2) The Secretary
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Petitioners/
Ops. And
Ghulam Mustafa Khan
S/o. Ghulam Mohammad Khan
Flat No. 809/909
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Respondent/
Complainant.
RP 28 of 2013 against IA 54/2013
in CC 60/2013, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between:
1) The President
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84
2) The Secretary
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Petitioners/
Ops. And
Sumanth Reddy,
S/o. J. Janardhan Reddy
Flat No. 807/907
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Respondent/
Complainant.
RP 29 of 2013 against IA 52 /2013
in CC 62/2013, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between:
1) The President
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84
2) The Secretary
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Petitioners/
Ops. And
Smt. Sudha Madhuri Yellamelli
W/o. Madhusudhan Yellamelli
Flat No. 801/901
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Respondent/
Complainant.
RP 30 of 2013 against IA 53/2013
in CC 61/2013, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between:
1) The President
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84
2) The Secretary
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Petitioners/
Ops. And
Suresh Kumar Natarajan
S/o. T. S. Natarajan
Flat No. 811/911, A
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Respondent/
Complainant.
RP 31 of 2013 against IA 51/2013
in CC 63/2013, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between:
1) The President
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84
2) The Secretary
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Petitioners/
Ops. And
Jaideep Ganguly
S/o. Rasbihari Ganguly
Flat No. 803/903
Aparna Heights-II
Owners Welfare Association
1-55/12, AH/II
Near Chirec Public School
Kondapur, Hyderabad-84 *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. R. Ravi Kumar
Counsel for the Resps: Admission stage
CORAM:
SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member)
***
1) This revision is preferred by the opposite parties against the order in IA No. 55/2013 in CC No. 59/2013 on the file of the Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy.
2) The Dist. Forum in IA No. 55/2013 in CC No. 59/2013 directed the petitioners/Ops not to disconnect any of the services like electricity, water, and LPG/TV/net connection etc. to the flat of the respondent/complainant No. 812 at 8th floor of Aparna Heights-II until further orders. At the same time, the complainant shall pay the maintenance charges equally along with other flat owners. This interim order was given and notice was ordered against petitioners/Ops to appear by 15.3.2013.
3) The learned counsel for the petitioners/Ops contended that the Dist. Forum passed the interim order without issuing any notice and that the aggrieved person should approach the Grievance Cell, and that he is not a consumer.
4) The petitioner/Ops relied on the following two decisions of National Commission (i) K. R. Ganesh Rao Vs. Sangeetha Apartment Owners Association reported in CPJ 1991-1-160. (ii) Swapan Kumar Babu Vs. Suniti Chattaraj reported in I (1997) CPJ 32 (NC) and we observe from the above decisions that they were rendered prior to amendment of the Consumer Protection Act.
5) The petitioner/Ops also relied on the decision of Maharashtra State Commission in Maruti Babugauda Patil Vs. Municipal Corporation, Thane reported in III (2003) CPJ 516 in which the State Commission has held that interim order with respect to an unauthorised construction requires a thorough probe and therefore the dispute is not ad-judicable in summary jurisdiction. The facts in the instant case are different and it does not deal with an un-authorised construction. His prayer is for not to disconnect basic amenities like water, electricity, cable connection etc., on payment of maintenance charges, and it does not require any thorough probe and falls within the definition of a consumer dispute.
6) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that the complainant does not have locus standi to file the complaint as the complainant is a member of the flat owners association and there is a Grievance Cell which the complainant should approach and only after exhausting that remedy the complainant ought to have filed the complaint before the Dist. Forum. The revision petitioner/Opposite Party is at liberty to raise all these aspects of jurisdiction in their written version/counter before the Dist. Forum.
7) Before we go into the merits cited in the grounds of revision, we observe that the complainant is a consumer as defined u/s 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, and prima facie we observe that the complainant has locus standi to file an interim application and that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Dist. Forum by way of an ex-parte interim order u/s 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioners/Ops can as well raise all their pleas in their counter. Taking into consideration that the direction given is not to disconnect basic amenities like water, electricity, TV/LPG/Net connections and that too on condition that the complainant should pay the maintenance charges, we do not find any substantial grounds to interfere with the impugned order, however, the Dist. Forum has stated that the petitioners/Ops should not disconnect the basic amenities until further orders.
8) Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Dist. Forum shall dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
9) In the result the RP is dismissed. Consequently RPs 27/2013 to 31/2013 are also dismissed. No costs. The Dist. Forum shall dispose of the complaints within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
02/04/2013
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
