State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.C.Maria Leo vs Ganesh Babu on 4 June, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1479/2018 ( Date of Filing : 24 Sep 2018 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/08/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/588/2017 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional) 1. S.C.Maria Leo No.21, Yahwey yacht Ganapathy (Chaitanya) layout, 1st cross, Horamavu, Agara, Near Kuvempu BMTC Bus stand & Lake, Bangalore-560043 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Ganesh Babu Nandhini Group of Constructions, No.5, 2nd cross, V.G.Layout, Jayanthi nagar Extension, Bangalore-560043 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 04 Jun 2024 Final Order / Judgement Date of Filing :24.09.2018 Date of Disposal :04.06.2024 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED:04.06.2024 PRESENT Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: PRI. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE(R)-JUDICAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.1479/2018 Mr S. C Maria Leo No.21, 'Yahwey Yacht' Ganapathy (Chaitanya) Layout 1st Cross, Horamavu Agara Near Kuvempu BMTC Bust Stand And Lake Bangalore-560 043 (By Mr. John Paul A, Advocate) Appellant
-Versus-
Mr.Ganesh Babu Nandhini Group of Constructions No.5, 2nd Cross V.G.Layout Jayanthi Nagar Extension Bangalore-560 043 Respondents
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 29.08.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.588/2017 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (for short, the District Forum).
2. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and heard learned counsels.
3. The Complainant has raised a consumer complaint to give direction against OPs to get back the amount paid in excess, to obtain suitable remedy for violation of MOU causing inconvenience, failure in providing proper service after sales as stated in complaint, the delay which was only on account of OP, erection of borewell, normal construction by using substandard materials etc., and sought refund of Rs.15 lakhs collected in excess, compare to the actual rate prevailing, Rs.1,57,000/- due on account of uncovered area, Rs.5 lakhs as compensation and litigation costs. OP has contested the case and denied all the allegations.
In view of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint, DF held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence and documents thereby found no case in favour of complainant and as a result proceed to dismiss the complaint as complainant has failed to prove the alleged rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP. Further District Forum while dismissing the complaint formed an opinion as the complainant has not produced any authorised Engineers Evaluation Report to prove the alleged case put-forth by him in the complaint and held allegations cannot be said proved to attribute the deficiency of service on the part ofOP for the delayed construction. It is therefore, in our view it would be just and proper to remand back this matter to the District Commission to reconsider the case of the complaint afresh and permit the complainant to produce authorised Engineers Evaluation report or appoint a Court Commissioner to inspect the complaint property and the alleged complaint which are required to be examined on the basis of memo of instructions of the parties to the complaint at the cost of complainant. Hence, proceed to allow the Appeal, Consequently, set aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.588/2017 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore with a direction to readmit the complaint and re-appreciate all the materials, allowing the complainant to place authorised Engineers Evaluation report or to appoint a Court Commissioner as observed in the order. All the contentions are kept open. District Commission is directed to decide the dispute as early as possible not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the order subject to the co-operations of the parties to the complaint.
4. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned.
LADY MEMBER JDUCIAL MEMBER *s [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER