National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Lac O.Yella Reddy vs Narne Estates Private Limited on 24 April, 2012
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO.
133 OF 2012
(From the order dated 13.09.2011 in FA.IA No.1806/2011 in Appeal
No.455/2009
of the State
Commission, A.P.)
LAC O.YELLA REDDY
S/O LATE O. RAMA
SUBBA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 68
YEARS,
OCC. ADVOCATE
R/O 673, DEFENCE
COLONY, SAINIK PURI
SECUNDERABAD -
500094 Petitioner
Vs.
NARNE ESTATES PRIVATE
LIMITED
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & M.D.,
COL. N. RANGA RAO
NO.1, GUNROCK
ENCLAVE,
SECUNDERABAD
500094 Respondent
BEFORE:
HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE V.B.
GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE
MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr.
K.S.Rama Rao, Advocate
Pronounced on : 24th
April, 2012
ORDER
PER JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (ii) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act). In first para of the petition, it is stated ;
That the petitioner is filing the present revision petition against the orders dated 13.9.2011 passed by the Honble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Hyderabad, in F.A.I.A. No.1806/2011 in FA No.455/2009 against CC No. 844 of 2006 wherein the petitioner sought for reopen above FA No.455 of 2009 and set aside order whereby the Honble State Commission was pleased to disallow above Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioner herein, stating that it does not have powers to Review its own orders dated 16.6.2011.
2. Whereas, prayer clause (b) of the petition reads as under :
(b) allow of the Revision Petition, and modify the impugned final judgment and order dated 6.6.2011 in FA No.455 of 2009 and set aside the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad.
3. Section 21 of the Act reads as under ;
21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction
(a) to entertain
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds [rupees one crore] ; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission ; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity
4. Section 21
(a) (ii) of the Act deal with appeals against the orders of any State Commission.
5. Whereas, Section 21 (b) of the Act gives the revisional powers to this Commission.
6. Seeking two distinct and separate reliefs, one by way of appeal under Section 21 (a) (ii) and other by way of revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, in one petition, are Ex-facie not maintainable.
7. Be that as it may, one of the impugned order, that is, dated 6.6.2011 passed by AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short as State Commission) read as under ;
The learned counsel for the appellant handed over the registered sale deed pertaining to Plot No.66 admeasuring 250 sq.yds. in Block XA of Sector IV of East City Township to the respondent/complainant, who in turn endorsed that he received the certified copy of the sale deed and that the appeal be closed.
In the circumstances, the appeal is disposed of. The warrants, if any issued in the E.A. be recalled forthwith.
8. While second order under challenge is dated 13.9.2011, which reads as under ;
The complainant intends to re-open the appeal though the sale deed in fact was executed in his favour. The appeal was closed only on his representation that the appellant had executed sale deed in his favour as sought in the complaint. Now, he intends to get the matter reopened on the ground that it was in an unauthorized lay out etc. If it were to be true then the complainant is permitted to take action before the appropriate court warranted under law. However, we are of the opinion that if this application is allowed it would amount to review of our order, which we have no jurisdiction.
In the result this petition is dismissed.
9. Petitioner herein, filed a complaint in the year 2006, before the District Forum, which allowed it vide order dated 22.10.2007. The District Forum passed the following directions ;
The opposite party to allot alternative plot nearby the original plot at the original price of Rs.27,000/- and register the same in favour of the complainant. The complainant shall pay the development charges and registration charges of Rs.42,550/-. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages to the complainant along with costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
10. Respondent herein, filed appeal (FA No.454 of 2008) before the State Commission against order dated 22.10.2007 of the District Forum but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 3.10.2008, in which following directions were passed ;
However, the appellant is directed to execute the registered sale deed for the plot that it was agreed to be sold to the complainant. Except with this slight modification, rest of the order of the District Forum is confirmed. The appellant is directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
11. Since, respondent did not comply with order dated 22.10.2007 of the District Forum, petitioner filed an Execution Application (No.7 of 2008) before the District Forum.
12. In the execution proceedings, respondent filed (I.A. No.376 of 2009) which was dismissed by District Forum on 11.5.2009.
13. Aggrieved by order dated 11.5.2009, respondent filed (IA No.933/2009) in FA 455 of 2009 before the State Commission.
14. State Commission granted interim stay with direction not to execute non-bailable warrant issued against the respondent.
15. After getting relief of the stay of execution of non-bailable warrant, respondent did not execute the sale deed.
Eventually, the sale deed was executed on 16.5.2011 in favour of the petitioner. After confirmation of sale deed, papers were handed over by the respondent on 16.6.2011 and appeal of respondent was closed by the State Commission.
16. Petitioner, thereafter, on 1.7.2011 applied for information of the schedule property and to his utter surprise, came to know that sale deed executed in his favour was illegal layout and is unauthorized one. Thereafter, petitioner filed (IA No.1806 of 2011 in FA No.455 of 2009) before the State Commission for setting aside of the order dated 16.6.2011. State Commission, dismissed the application, vide its order dated 13.9.2011, stating that it cannot review its own order and dismissed the petition.
17. Hence, the present petition.
18. Admittedly, sale deed had been executed in favour of the petitioner. Now petitioner wants to re-open the case by taking new plea that the layout was unauthorized, which was not its case in the original complaint. Petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the matter by filing miscellaneous application, in that appeal which has already been decided by the State Commission, on 6.6.2011. Moreover, State Commission has already granted permission to the petitioner, to take action before the appropriate Court warranted under the law.
19. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity, ambiguity or illegality in the order passed by State Commission. Thus, present petition is meritless, being without any legal basis and has been filed just to waste the time of this Commission. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition with punitive costs of Rs.25,000/-.
20. Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs by way of a demand draft for the sum of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account within four weeks from today.
21. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the said costs, within the prescribed period, then, he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
22. List the matter for compliance on 25.5.2012.
...J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Sonia/