Date of Filing :09.09.2024
Date of Disposal :14.10.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:14.10.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: PRI. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE (R )-
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.70/2024
M/s Tarikere House Building
Co-operative Society
Registered under Karnataka
Societies Registration Act
Rep. by its President
Mr T.V.Shivashankarappa
S/o Late Venkata Rao
Aged about 82 years
Basaveshwara Street, Tarikere-577 228
(By Mr. C.A Ravindra, Advocate) Petitioner
-Versus-
Mr. T.B. Chandrashekar
S/o Late T.D.Basavaraju
Aged about 51 years
R/at Puttasankanna Street
Kalidasa Nagar, Tarikere
Chikamagaluru-572-228 Respondent
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is a Review Application filed by Applicant concerning Appeal No.739/2008 on the file of this Commission. The RA sought to review the order of this Commission dated 16.09.2008.
2. The Commission heard learned counsel for Review Applicant, perused the grounds of review application, order under review dated 16.09.2008 and the proceedings found from Consumer Complaint No.123/2007 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chickmagaluru in Execution Application No.13/2013 thereby found satisfied to dispense with issuance of notice of this RA to be served on Respondent to avoid delay and expenditure to the respondent/complainant/decree holder.
3. Learned counsel for Review Applicant submits, the Society is governed by its own bye-laws and presently society is represented by its President Mr.T.V Shivashankarappa. He submits during the course of Execution Petition No.13/2013, District Forum passed an order directing Mr Chandrappa and Mr Janardan to register site No.35 situated at Devaraju Urs Extension, 2nd Stage, Tarikere and directed complainant/Decree Holder to pay additional and incidental charges to Sub-Registrar instead of Society and he submits Complainant/Decree Holder has not paid the balance of Rs.5,500/- which is approximately 52%. He ought to have pay a sum of Rs.10,500/- in the year 1999. The current S.R value of the site is Rs.20 lakhs and market value is Rs.34 lakhs, wherefore, even according to 52% fall deficit, the Complainant is required to pay a sum of Rs.17,68,000/- approximately. Hence, requiring the society to register the site in favour of Complainant/Decree Holder by paying only Rs.75,000/- would be gross unjust enrichment of the Complainant/Decree Holder at the cost of the Society.
4. Let us examine the RA papers in particular order dated 16.09.2008 in Appeal No.739/2018, wherein Mr. T.B. Chandrashekar, the complainant has preferred an Appeal aggrieved by the order dated 29.02.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.123/2007 and the State Commission held District Forum has right in ordering complainant to pay Rs.75,000/- excluding Rs.5,000/- which was paid by the father in the year 1999 and held the decision rendered by District Forum is proper and correct. Accordingly, upheld the reasoning and finding recorded by the District Forum and as a result, dismissed the Appeal and the said order reached finality.
5. It would also be appropriate to make mention herein that the findings recorded by State Commission in Appeal No.1059/2014 on 20.06.2018, wherein held the order passed by the District Forum dated 09.07.2014 in EA No.13/2013 is modified in respect of the last line of the impugned order and directed the decree holder to get the sale deed registered in his favour by paying additional and incidental charges permissible under law to the Sub-Registrar, Tarikere which has be executed by the J.Dr. Failing which, the Decree Holder/Complainant is at liberty to take stringent action against J.Dr in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel for review applicant submits that a decree was passed against Mr Chandrappa & Mr Janardan and not against Review Applicant Mr. H.S Satyanarayana, who is the present President of the Society, is summarily rejected, since Complainant has obtained an award against the Tarikere House Building Co-operative Society, when Mr Chandrappa and Mr Janardana were the President and Secretary of the said Society and if as on the date the RA-President or somebody is the Secretary, makes no difference since they are the successions in the office of the society are amenable to the decree. The decree obtained by the respondent/complainant against the society reached the finality and the society silently sits all these years now cannot seek to review the order of the State Commission. The order passed by the DF and SCDRC against the then President and the Secretary binds the present President and the Secretary or the office bearers with whatever nominclature.
7. Further to be noted herein, there is an inordinate delay of 5807 days in filing this RA, seeking to review of the order of this Commission passed in Appeal No.739/2008. In this regard we have to take judicial notice of the fact, not only the District Forum but the State Commission have decided the case between the parties under CP Act 1986 which did not have powers to review its own order and in so far as CP Act, 2019 is concerned Section 50 provides for review any of the order passed by State Commission if there is an error apparent on the face of the record either of its own motion or an application made by any of the parties within 30 days of such order. It is therefore, viewed from angle, the review application has to be held wrongly chosen the Commission to review the order passed by this Commission under Section 50 of CP Act, 2019. Hence, this Review Application is hereby summarily rejected.
8. The copy of this Order is directed to be sent to District Commission and the parties concerned for their information.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
