THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

REVISION PETITION NO.12/2023

Ananda House Building

Co-Operative Society Ltd,                                     

Represented by its Secretary,

With its registered office at P/1,

 9^th cross, T.K.Layout, 4^th stage,

Saraswathipuram, Mysuru 570009.                ...Petitioner/s

-V/s-

Divya D/o late V. Nataraj

W/o Umesha,

Age not disclosed in the complaint

# 557, 20^th cross, 4^th main,

Vidyaranyapuram,

Mysuru.                                                       .....Respondent/s                                                                                                           

O R D E R

BY SMT.SUNITA BAGEWADI, MEMBER

The Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party filed this Revision Petition being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2023 passed in CC.No.177/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore.

2.     Heard from Counsel for Revision Petitioner.

3.      The Counsel for Revision Petitioner submits that the Respondent was the member of the society and wife of legal advisor of the society. Further, she has paid entire consideration towards the allotment of site and seeks for the allotment of the site.  The respondent has paid the amount for the allotment of site in the year 2012 and also she was well within the knowledge that the society at the juncture was undergoing turmoil and that there were no sites which were readily available at its disposal.  Hence, she filed a complaint before the District Commission for deficiency of service on part of the Appellant which is pending for adjudication.

4.      During, the pendency of the complaint the Appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC r/w Section 38(8) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking amendment of the version so, as to incorporate subsequent developments.  The said application was opposed by the Respondent by filing their objections to the application.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the District Commission has dismissed the application of the appellant on merits on the ground that the respondent had filed this application on the belated stage to prolong the matter only.  Aggrieved by this order appellant has preferred this Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission for relief. 

6.      Perused the Revision Petition, the order passed by the District Commission and submission of the counsel for Revision Petitioner, we noticed that the Respondent has filed the complaint before District Commission in 2014 for deficiency of service on the part of the appellant wherein, appellant filed written version in 2014 itself and when case is for argument stage, after completion of evidence of both the parties and also submitting Interrogatories by the appellant, appellant has filed application U/o VI rule 17 of CPC r/w 151 CPC seeking for amendment on 06.01.2023 after lapse of 9 years.  However, the District Commission has dismissed the said application on the ground that Revision Petitioner had filed this application only to prolong the matter on belated stage.  Moreover, the appellant has not made out any justifiable ground to amend the version, we agree with the order passed by the District Commission.  As per Consumer Protection Act, the time prescribed for filing the version is 45 days from date of service of notice and the appellant has filed his version in 2014 only and subsequently, the stage of evidence affidavit of both parties and Interrogatories also finished and after lapse of 9 years appellant came with an application seeking for amendment, which is not in accordance with law. 

7.     However,  perused sworn affidavit filed by the appellant along with application we noticed that, the facts which are being availed are subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency of the case and same amended will not alter the nature of the defense, its only the addition of the earlier defense it does not introduce new defense.  Such being the case since the trial is not yet completed, it is in the interest of the justice that amendment in the written version, should have been allowed by the courts below on certain terms.  The Counsel for Revision Petitioner filed two judgments of Hon’ble National Commission.

1. 2022 3 CPR(NC) 39 between Dr. Hemant Gupta versus Ram Janam Tripathi in Revision Petition No. 430 of 2021.
2. 2018  4  CPJ(NC)  586 between Prescon Realtors & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr versus D.S. Ranganath in first Appeal No. 490 of 2018.

8.     Hence, relying on the above two judgments and considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petitioner maybe given an opportunity to file their amended written version on payment of cost.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

  The Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to cost.

The Impugned Order passed by the District Commission is set aside and the application under Order VI Rule 17 is allowed on payment of cost of Rupees of 5,000/- payable to the Complainant/Respondent and further, the District Commission has directed to take the amendment version on record and pass the Order on merits expeditiously.

Forward free copies to both parties.

MEMBER                                        JUDICIAL MEMBER

VS*