Karnataka

StateCommission

A/505/2018

Gangireddygari Lokeshwar Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Maxworth Realty India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gandi Law Chamers

22 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

 

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

MR. K.B. SANGANNAVAR                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                    : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 505/2018

 

Gangireddygari Lokeshwar Reddy S/o. Late Gangireddygari Obulasubba Reddy, R/a C-01-440(5), Maruthinagar, Kadapa, Andrapradesh-516001 (By M/s. Gandhi Law Chambers) V/s	……Appellant
1.  M/s Maxworth Realty India Ltd.      Regd. office at:      No.22/1, Railway Parallel road,      Nehru Nagar, Bangalore-560020      Rep. by the Chairman & Managing Director      Sri Keshava S/o K.Muniyappa 2.  Keshava K.      S/o K. Muniyappa,      R/at No.56/2, 1st D Road,      Mathikere Road, Mathikere,	..…Respondents

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY MR. K.B. SANGANNAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2017 passed in C.C. No.847/2017 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore. 

2. We examined the appeal memo, impugned order and the I.A. filed under Section 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Complainant raised Complaint under Section 12 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for an order against OPs to provide basic amenities such as drainage, sanitary, asphalting of Road, electricity and water supply and also club house, swimming pool, demarcation of sites according to approve layout plan and to deliver possession of vacant site or otherwise sought to refund sale consideration amount of Rs.12,65,000/- which was collected by OP vide agreement dated 15.02.2013 together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 22.05.2012 and sought costs of Rs.3.00 lakhs.  This complaint was contested by OP Nos. 1 and 2 while OP No.3 placed exparte.  The forum below allowed the complaint in part directing OPs jointly and severally provide all the amenities assured to the complainant and shall obtain BIAPPA approval and other statutory approvals within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under law and shall furnish authenticated copies of the same to the complainant as to enable him to obtain Khata and put up construction.  Thus, such relief granted by forum below and we do not find recording of sound reasons as to why Prayer B was not considered in consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the case.  It is to be noted herein that in this appeal complainant along with appeal memo itself filed an I.A. under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend prayer No. iii of the complaint in line No.1 delete the word costs and insert word damages.  The object of Consumer Law is to protect consumers and by the same time to decide complaint with swift speed, in other words, following summary proceedings.  It is therefore, it would be just and proper to remand this matter to forum below to reconsider the case of the complainant and to decide on this I.A. filed by complainant affording opportunity to both parties and it is needless to say in accordance with law.  Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.  Consequently, impugned order is set aside with a direction to forum below to decide the complaint afresh affording opportunity to both parties as early as possible within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

​JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

MEMBER

CV*