BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
RP 25 of 2014 against IA 254/2013 in
CC 3/2013, Dist. Forum, Warangal.
Between:
Nikhils Inn Flat Owners Welfare Association
Rep. by its President
K. Rajeshwara Chary, S/o. K. Veram
Govt. Employee, H.No. 1-7-1320/301
Nikhil’s Inn Flat, Advocates Colony
Hanumakonda, Warangal Dist. *** Petitioner/
Complainant.
Vs.
1) K. Manjula
W/o. K. Shankar Prasad Rao
Builder of Nikhil’s Inn Apartments
H.No. 1-7-1250, Advocates Colony
Balasamudram, Hanumakonda
Warangal Dist.
Rep. by GPA Holder
K. Shankar Prasad Rao
2) The Commissioner,
Warangal Municipal Corporation
Warangal *** Respondents/
Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. K. Karunakar
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. P. Muralidhar (R1)
R2 served.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order : 06/08/2014
(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)
***
1) This revision is directed against the order passed by the Dist. Forum, Warangal in IA No. 254/2013 in CC No. 3/2013 filed by the petitioner in the main complaint in CC No. 3/2013 whereby permission to amend the complaint was dismissed.
2) The petitioner is the complainant and he filed the said CC against the builder with whom the complainant entered into an agreement of sale for purchase of a flat in their complex. As in the complaint, he had not mentioned certain things with regard to the deficiencies, he was constrained to file the present application seeking amendment of the complaint, and the same was opposed by the Opposite Party and after considering the material on record the Dist. Forum dismissed the said application. Hence this revision.
3) Heard.
4) From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the complainant has not stated anything with regard to the amendments that are sought to be incorporated in the said complaint and in the absence of any material as to how and why said amendments are required, it is not possible for the Courts to allow the said amendments. Further, the main ground which prompted the Dist. Forum to reject this application is that on an earlier occasion, the complainant filed IA No. 121/2013 to implead the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Warangal and the said application was ordered. When the revision petitioner filed this application subsequent to the filing of the CC, he should have known these facts i.e., with regard to deficiencies in the flats being the members of the Flat Owners Welfare Association. He is filing application after application which is not permissible. As the amendments are not specified in the affidavit filed in support of said IA, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand, and accordingly this matter is remanded back to the Dist. Forum, however, on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- payable to the Bar Association of this Commission.
After such remand, the petitioner/complainant may file fresh affidavit before the Dist. Forum wherein he shall specifically state the amendments which he intends to include in the main complaint. This revision is allowed accordingly.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
