Date of Filing :14.12.2023
Date of Disposal :28.10.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:28.10.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: PRI. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE (R )-
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.161/2023
Mr Sreenivasulu Puvvadi
S/o Mr Puvvadi Narayana
Aged about 47 years
Residing at Flat No.306
G M Reddy Royale Apartments
Next to Mast Kalandar
ORR Eco Space Service Road
Belandur Junction
Bangalore-560 013
(By Mr. P.M. Nayak, Advocate) Petitioner
-Versus-
M/s Puja Mega Structures Pvt. Ltd.,
A company registered under
the Companies Act 1956
Registered Office No.408/B
13th Main, 24th Cross
Banashankari 2nd Stage
Bangalore-560 070
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr K Mohan Babu Respondent
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Counsel for Review Applicant and Mr Sreenivasulu Puvvadi S/o Puvvadi Narayana, who is a complainant in Consumer Complaint No.799/2016 is present.
None appears for Respondent herein and Appellant in Appeal No.3357/2016. Hence, Commission heard learned counsel for RA Petitioner.
Perused the proceedings in Appeal No.3357/2016 and award passed in CC No.799/2016 dated 25.11.2016, against the said order, OP preferred an Appeal through Advocate on 29.12.2016 and the Appeal is filed under section 15 of CP Act 1986. The Appellant/OP has deposited Rs.25,000/- towards statutory deposit amount to entertain the Appeal under the said Act.
2. This Review Application is filed by Complainant/Respondent in Appeal No.3357/2016 to review the order dated 12.06.2019. Learned counsel for Review Applicant submits that when an Appeal is field by OP aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2016 passed in CC No.799/2016 question of considering IA filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC read with Section 71 and 79 of RERA Act to return the complaint to present before the RERA does not arise at all has considerable legal force, but facts remain, inadvertently, on 12.06.2019, such an application came to be filed by learned counsel for Respondent/Complainant and the Commission believed the submission of learned counsel for Respondent, proceed to record the same and as a result allowed the Appeal as requested by the Respondent/Complainant and permitted him to withdraw the complaint and present the same before appropriate Forum and further directed to refund the amount in favour of Appellant, which in our view, has to be held an error apparent on the face of the record and such an error on the face of the record had been brought to the notice of the Commission has to be rectified in exercise of power vested under section 50 of the CP Act, 2019 or else irreparable loss or miscarriage of justice would be cause to the Respondent/Complainant and on the contrary no prejudice or loss would be caused to the Appellant/OP.
3. It would appropriate to make mention herein as on the date of passing of the order neither counsel nor Appellant were present before the Commission. In our view, the commission passed the order under review with an impression it was a complainant case. In such view of the matter, proceed to allow the Review Application No.161/2013 by condoning the delay if any and as a result allowed the RA. Consequently set aside the order dated 12.06.2019 passed in Appeal No.3357/2016 and as a result, restored the Appeal No.3357/2016 on the file of this Commission to hear arguments on merits. Interim order granted by this Commission in Appeal No.3357/2016 is order to be extended. The Office is directed to list Appeal No.3357/2016 on the file of this Commission on 30.12.2024 to hear arguments.
4. 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
