This revision petition No.4860 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner Venkataramana Thota against the order dated 19.7.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.391 of 2012, wherein the State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 against the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, (in short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.452 of 2010. 2. First Appeal No.769 of 2012 has been filed by M. Jaisankar against the order dated 29.08.2012 of the State Commission passed in CC Nos.98, 122 & 133 of 2009. Similarly, appeal No.51 of 2013 has been filed by Sudarshan Krishna Murthi against the order dated 29.08.2012 of the State Commission, passed in CC Nos.98,122 & 133 of 2009. 3. As the same opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 is involved in all these cases and the same question of law is involved, these cases are being decided together. 4. In revision petition No.4860 of 2013, the State Commission has decided the revision petition on the basis of the following observations:- “10. The facts involved in this case is similar to the facts involved in Complaint Nos.98 of 2008 and other connected matters disposed of by this Commission on 29th August 2012 are one and the same. Therefore, we are of the view that the District Forum has passed the order cannot be accepted. The total relief claimed by the respondent is civil in nature for which the respondent might have remedy before elsewhere and not before the Consumer Forum/Commission. As such we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case to allow his appeal. Moreover, the respondent though appeared through an advocate as stated earlier did not put forth his arguments. After considering the facts and circumstances, in our opinion the appeal filed by the appellant is to be allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum, Bangalore Urban in Complaint No.452/2010 is set aside. The complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum is dismissed. The amount in deposit by the appellant in this appeal shall be refunded to the appellant if a memo is filed to that effect.” 5. In First Appeal Nos.769 of 2012 & 51 of 2013 it is seen that impugned order dated 29.08.2012 of the State Commission dismissing the complaints reads as under:- “18. We have carefully perused the averments and the allegations made and the relief claimed in these complaints. On careful pleadings of the parties, in our considered opinion the case of the complainants appears to be a case of non performance of its obligation by the Ops under an agreement to sell for which the complainants ought to have approached the civil court by filing suits either for specific performance of the agreement to sell or any other alternative relief in accordance with law. After having gone through the pleadings of both the parties on the basis of the materials placed before us, we are of the view that the questions involved in these cases could have been decided by the civil court after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence at length since the Forums and the State Commissions under the Act have to dispose of the cases in a summary manner. Therefore, in our considered view the complainants have failed to establish the negligent act on the part of the OPs much less the deficiency in service. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER Complaints are dismissed. No order as to costs.” 6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard and the material on record has been perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the appellants stated that two agreements were signed with the opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 by the complainants i.e. petitioner and the appellants. One agreement was the agreement to sell and the other was the construction agreement. The State Commission has only considered the agreement to sell and not construction agreement, whereas both the agreements were signed on the same date and are connected. In RP No.4860 of 2013, the sale agreement and construction agreement were singed on 07.02.2005. Similarly in FA No.769 of 2012 these two agreements were signed on 10.10.2005 and similarly in FA No.51 of 2013 these two agreements were signed on 08.08.2005. These two agreements were signed between the parties only to specify the contractual responsibilities and liabilities separately for the construction and for the actual sale. The State Commission ought to have considered these two agreements in a composite way. The complainant entering into these agreements is definitely a consumer and his case ought to have been decided by the State Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner and appellants further stated that there is delay in filing the revision petition as well as the appeals and reasons for delay are mentioned in the respective applications for condonation of delay. It was requested that the delay may be condoned keeping in view the merits and injustice meted out to the complaints in these cases. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents stated that the complaints were not maintainable before the District Forum/State Commission and the State Commission has rightly observed that the complainant may move before the competent court for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Moreover, the revision petition has been filed with delay of 168 days and the first appeal No.769 of 2012 has been filed with delay of 9 days. Similarly First Appeal No.51 of 2013 has been filed with delay of 28 days. No proper explanation has been given for such delay in the applications for condonation of delay filed. Thus, revision petition as well as two appeals are required to be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. First of all, the delay in filing the revision petition as well as the appeals needs to be considered. First coming to the delay in filing the appeals, it is seen that the delay is of 9 days and 28 days. As the delay is marginal and as the substantive question of law is involved in these appeals, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeals at a cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission by the appellant in each appeal separately within a period of four weeks. As the same substantive question is involved in the revision petition, I also deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the revision petition at a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within a period of four weeks. 10. Coming to the merits of these cases, it is seen that separate construction agreement has been signed on the same date when the sale agreement has been signed by both the parties in the three cases. Two agreements i.e. sale agreement and construction agreement form a composite agreement between the parties. Both the agreements are required to be seen while considering the matter on merits. As the construction agreement is in respect of immovable property, this comes in the category of service agreement and the opposite parties become service provider and the complainant becomes the consumer. From this point of view the composite contract consisting of the sale agreement as well as construction agreement will constitute a contract where the services of construction are to be provided by the opposite parties. Seen from this point of view, the complaints are well covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the State Commission should have seen these matters from this perspective also. It seems that State Commission has overlooked the agreement of construction and has mainly concentrated on agreement to sell. Thus, the impugned orders of the State Commission are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be set aside. 11. Based on the above discussion, the revision petition No.4860 of 2013 as well as two appeals No.769 of 2012 and 51 of 2013 are allowed and the order of the State Commission dated 19.07.2013 passed in Appeal No.391 of 2012 and the common order dated 29.08.2012 passed in CC No.98, 122 & 133 of 2009 are set aside. These cases are remanded to the State Commission for deciding them on merits in the light of the observations made by this Commission in forgoing paragraphs after giving all the parties an opportunity of being heard and following the procedure as laid down by law. The petitioner in revision petition No.4860 of 2013 shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within a period of four weeks. Similarly, the appellants in appeals No.769 of 2012 & 51 of 2013 shall deposit Rs.5,000/- each with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within a period of four weeks. The State Commission to proceed with these cases after the parties have deposited the respective amounts in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. All parties to appear before the State Commission on 10.07.2018. | 
