State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Arpitha Sreeram, W/O Mr Venu M R , Aged ... vs M/S Saudela Constructions Pvt Ltd on 16 February, 2022
Daily Order BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 PRESENT MR. K.B. SANGANNAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. DIVYASHREE M. : MEMBER Appeal No. 473/2021 Dr. Arpitha Sreeram W/o. Mr. Venu M.R. Venu M.R. S/o. Ramachandraiah Setty Both are R/at C-201, Club Meadows House of Hiranandani, Akshay Nagar Begur-Horamavu Road, Bengaluru 560 068 (By Sri. S. Nagaraja) V/s ......Appellants M/s. Saudela Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office at 514 Towers, 211, FPJ Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Rep. by its Managing Director M/s. Saudela Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Branch Office at House of Hiranandani 757/B, 100 ft. Road, HAL II Stage Indiranagar, Bengaluru 560 038 Rep. by its Managing Director H.R. Ravichandra Rep. by its GPA Holder M/s. Saudela Constructions Pvt. Ltd. R/at "Neptune Court", 2nd Floor 60 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 (By Sri. H. Srinivas Rao) .....Respondents O R D E R
BY MR. K.B. SANGANNAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by complainants in C.C.No.869/2019 aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2021.
The Commission heard Learned Counsels on record.
We examined the appeal memo and the impugned order. The appellant herein as complainants raised consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission below dismissed the complaint only on the ground that joint complaint is not maintainable without seeking permission under Section 12 (1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Let us examine whether such finding recorded by Commission below is in accordance with Section 12(1)(c) and to examine the facts of consumer complaint. According to the complainant Nos. 1 & 2 they are husband and wife. In this regard in our view sale agreement and construction agreement dated 23.07.2012 would play a vital importance, since, appellants/complainants booked residential apartment bearing No.201 having built up area 1232 sq.ft. in the second floor of 'C' wing and sale deed came to be executed on 25.02.2016 in respect of the said flat. This is a property purchased by husband and wife. At any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that this is a joint complaint. It may be true that husband and wife have purchased such property and they are to be considered as one unit relates to apartment bearing No.201. It is therefore, we are of the view that Commission below failed to perceive these facts and misinterpreted Section 12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides for filing of joint complaint with leave of Commission, even if it is so the Commission below could have directed complainants or their counsel to seek leave to file such complaint and on failure on the part of the commission below in our view is nothing but miscarriage of justice. In such view of the matter the impugned order passed by Commission below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to allow the appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, consequently, set aside the order dated 16.04.2021 passed in C.C. No.869/2019 by II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and remand back the matter to proceed with the enquiry on merits affording opportunity to both parties and to decide the dispute as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 02.03.2022.
Sd/-
Judicial Member Sd/-
Member CV*