Date of Filing : 05.09.2013
Date of Disposal : 20.05.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:20.05.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: PRI. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE (R )- I/C PRESIDENT
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.1354/2013
Mr. Vivek Tippa Shetty
Aged about 33 years
S/o Sri Suresh Tippashetty
Residing at No.2009/190
Last Bus Stop
Vidyanagar, Davanagere-577 005
(By Mr Vasanth Shetty M, Advocate) Appellant
-Versus-
1. Mr P.Sunil
S/o Mr T.Puttegowda
Aged about 32 years
M/s Spoorthi Developers and Builders
No.21, 6th Cross, Kaveri Layout
Vijayanagar
Bangalore-560 040
Also at
Mr. P. Sunil
Employee ID:21440725
Design Oracle Database admini
EC1 Office, ITO Do Best Shore India Cluster
HP Avenue39/40, Electronic City
Bangalore-560 100
2. Sri R.S.Nataraj
S/o R.Shivanna
Aged about 51 years
No.96, 7th Cross, Sampige Road
Malleshwaram
Bangalore-560 003 Respondents
(By Mr.Theertha, Advocate for R2)
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: I/c PRESIDENT
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 23.07.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.787/2013 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Commission.
3. We examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal and Appeal papers.
4. Now, we have to decide on this Appeal, whether on the grounds of Appeal, Appellant has made out grounds to interfere in the impugned order?.
5. The Complainant has raised a Consumer Complaint in CC No.787/2013 against Ops, of whom OP1 is a Developer & Builder and they remained absent before the District Forum. In other words, failed to participate in the complaint proceedings, yet the District Forum proceed to dismiss the compliant on the ground that under the Agreement to Sell, it is the responsibility of the OPs only to construct the Schedule Property and provide the facilities. However, on perusal of the Sale Deed dated 11.04.2011, it discloses in the C-Schedule of the Sale Deed, the complainant had purchased the flat with all the facilities shown in the said schedule from the Developer and on these recitals found in the Sale Deed dated 11.04.2011 and even in the absence of OPs, proceed to dismiss the complaint, which in our view, is contrary to the materials placed on record by the Complainant. It would be appropriate to make mention of the relief sought in the complaint is to give direction to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest for non-providing lift, electricity, compound wall, water connection, paintings, the kitchen facilities and door fittings etc., In so far as these facilities, which are mentioned in an Agreement of Sale, which normally could be incorporated in the Sale Deed does not mean to say that OPs have provided all these facilities to complainant. The DF has failed to take notice of the fact that OPs did not participated in the proceedings. In other words failed to submit their version to the compliant raised by the Complainant. In such circumstances, dismissal of the complaint has to be held contrary to facts and is not sustainable under law. In such view, it would be just and proper for this Commission to remand back the matter to the District Commission to decide the case afresh affording opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly, proceed to allow the Appeal. Consequently, set aside the impugned order 23.07.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.787/2013 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru with a direction to re-admit the complaint and to decide the case in accordance with law as observed as early as possible not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the order.
6. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned.
Lady Member I/c President
*s
