THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
APPEAL NO.90/2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Anil Khemchand Advani
Sierra Cartel, 2nd Floor,
Building No.343,
No.1207/343, 9th Main Road, … Appellant/s
HSR Layout, Bengaluru
(By Sri.Anish Jose Antony, Advocate)
V/s
Sunmist Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd,
Represented by its
Secretary, Rizvi Complex,
Shirley Rajan Road, …Respondent/s
Bandra West,
Mumbai-400 050
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The complainant in complaint No.295/2022 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Bangalore Urban II Addl. District Consumer Commission dated 30-12-2022 which accepted the version filed by the Opposite Party upon application made by him. The complainant before this commission submits that they have filed a complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party. After admission, notice was issued to the Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and filed vakalath but prays time to file version and same was adjourned to 31-12-2022 and the Opposite Party made an application to file version. The District Consumer Commission has accepted the version of the Opposite Party though there is completion of 45 days as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act and submits that the time for filing version has elapsed as on 10-11-2022, even though the District Consumer Commission has accepted the version which is against to law. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission and prays for direction to not to accept the version filed by the Opposite Party.
2. Heard the arguments from the appellant.
3. On going through the order sheet dated 31-12-2022, the District Consumer Commission has accepted the version upon the application filed by the Opposite Party, the said acceptance of version is only on the interest and justice and equity and permitted to participate the proceedings. We found there is no heard ship causes to the complainant, if version is taken on record, the burden lies on the complainant to establish the allegations of deficiency of service. We found there is no any merit in the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
