State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tirupati Urban Development Authority vs N.Venkata Siva Reddy, Son Of ... on 10 November, 2015
1
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.236/2014 against C.C.No.49/2013 District Consumer Forum-II,
Tirupathi.
Between:
Tirupathi Urban Development Authority
Represented by its Vice Chairman,
Sri Venkateswara Reddy,
Tirupathi.
...Appellant/Opposite Party.
And
N.Venkata Siva Reddy,
S/o.N.Rajasekhar Reddy,
D.No.6-7-609, Gayathri Apartments,
Sripuram Colony,
Tirupathi.
...Respondent/Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy.
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P. Punna Rao.
QUORUM: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI, PRESIDENT.
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN.
Oral Order (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Noushad Ali, President)
*****
1.This appeal filed by the opposite party is directed against the order dated 17.1.2014 in C.C.No.49/2013 passed by the District Forum-II, Tirupathi.
2. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent herein with a direction to the appellant to issue the proceedings of layout approval to the respondent and to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages within 15 days and in default to pay interest at 9% per annum and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent purchased an extent of 2397.76 sq. meters of site in the layout situated in Survey No.170/2, Chennayagunta Village of Tirupathi Urban Mandal. He applied for regularization of the said layout as per the orders of the State Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.902 dated 31.12.2007. His case is that he paid the requisite amount and complied with all the formalities required under the G.O. and was entitled for regularization. His allegation is that though he complied with all the requirements, the appellant did not issue proceedings for a long time and ultimately served a letter on 28.6.2012 intimating that the application was rejected on the ground that the layout was 2 agricultural land. The respondent, therefore, filed the complaint questioning the said order on the ground of deficiency in service.
4. Unfortunately, the appellant did not contest the complaint by filing written version though sufficient time was given. Therefore, the District Forum had no option except to allow the complaint.
5. In this appeal several grounds are urged on behalf of the appellant including the maintainability of the complaint itself. According to the appellant, jurisdiction is not vested in the Forum to entertain the complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and special remedies are provided under the aforesaid G.O. itself. The appellant would also rely on several other orders of the State Government issued from time to time. The appellant filed material in support of the said contentions in this appeal which are marked as Exs.B.1 to B.12.
6. Sri Punna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the impugned order, would submit that the complaint is maintainable under the Act and that the remedies provided under the G.O. would not debar the present complaint as Sec.3 of the Act is an additional remedy provided to the complainant. The respondent has also filed certain documents in the appeal which are marked as Exs.A.13 and A.14.
7. As seen from the aforesaid contentions, apart from questioning the jurisdiction of the Forum, both parties have come up with fresh material at this appellate stage. In view of the same, both the learned counsel would agree that the matter deserves denovo consideration by the Forum. This Commission agrees with the said submission and feels that the dispute needs to be resolved in the light of the material brought forth by both parties.
8. Having regard to the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. The District Forum shall decide the matter afresh after giving notice to both parties and affording an opportunity to them to file Exs.A.13 and A.14 and B.1 to B.12 before it.
9. In as much as the appellant failed to appear before the District Forum though sufficient opportunity was given and did not even pay costs awarded by 3 the Forum, the appellant shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent. The District Forum shall dispose of the complaint as early as possible in any event not exceeding three moths from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
___________________ PRESIDENT Dt:10.11.2015.
Vvr.