Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, K.C.BHANU
Eureka EStates Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad - Respondent
W.P.No.25817/03
Decided On : 10-12-04
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. V. Venkataramana, Mr. E. Manohar
Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies which are not vested with powers of civil Court not entitled to exercise review jurisdiction as envisaged u/Sec.114 of CPC - District Forum or State Commission are entitled to exercise only such power which is specifically vested in them by statute under Act or Rules framed thereunder - They have no inherent jurisdiction as that of civil Courts - State Commission has no jurisdiction to review its own order - In this case relief sought not for rectification of any clerical error or arithmetical mistake crept in final order - By impugned order, Commission has totally changed judgment already pronounced by it by introducing a new concept of choice to complainant about delivery of Flats as against alternative relief of refund of amount together with compensation.
High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of Consti-tution may not interfere with every erroneous order, in case where such erroneous order as not resulted in causing any substantial injustice to parties - Order which suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, is void and High Court is duty bound to declare such order as void - Erroneous order cannot be equated to that of void order suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction - Impugned order passed by State Commission, quashed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ and quash the order of the 1st respondent in C. D. I. A. No. 1392 of 2003 (wrongly described as C. D. I. A. No. 1939 of 2001) in C. D. No. 74 of 1999, dated 07-11-2003.
( 2 ) IN order to consider as to whether the impugned order passed by the A. P. State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the Commission") suffers from any errors apparent on the face of the record requiring our interference in exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction, few relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition may have to be noticed.
( 3 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 herein have filed a complaint in C. D. No. 74 of 1999 before the 1st respondent-Commission under Section 17 (1) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ) against the petitioner with a prayer to direct the petitioner to complete the construction of flat Nos. C-9, C-10, C-11 and C-12 respectively in the fourth floor of eureka court Apartments in Survey No. 14, yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, as per the specifications and deliver the same; to pay compensation at Rs. 30,000. 00 per month from 31-03-1999 till the date of handing over possession of the flats; to get approval from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under BRS Scheme and to provide lift, car parking area in the cellar etc.
( 4 ) THE case of the respondents/ complainants before the Commission was that the petitioner is a builder of the building complex by name "eureka Court apartments" and it has sold Flat Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 relating to undivided interest in the land and further entered into an agreement for construction of the apartments with description as Flat Nos. C-9, C-10, C-11 and c-12 in the fourth floor and the Petitioner had defaulted in construction of the apartments and the same has constituted a deficiency in service since the petitioner has failed to complete the construction and handover the flats to the respondents/complainants. Petitioner has contested the said complaint on various grounds and it is unnecessary to notice the details of the grounds on which the petitioner resisted the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants. The commission vide its final order, dated 19-06-2003, partly allowed the said complaint. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:". . . . . . . . IT is the duty of the opposite party to obtain proper sanction and complete the construction before he could seek for payment as per the terms of the agreement. As he failed to obtain permission from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad he cannot convey the flats constructed unauthoriseldy. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on his part in failing to convey the flats constructed as against approved plan as such the opposite party is bound to refund the amount already collected together with damages since the opposite party alone has failed to perform his part of contract. The mere fact that the opposite party applied for regularisation of unauthorised construction does not absolve him of his responsibility of handing over the constructed flats under approved plan. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The Commissioner who was appointed by this Commission filed his report dt. 30-7-2001 pointing out several incomplete works and defects. Hence accepting the report of the commissioner we direct the opposite party to complete the works as pointed out in the report after obtaining necessary permission from the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and deliver possession of the flats in question within a period of three months from to-day. Regarding compensation, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to each of the complainants would meet the ends of justice in view of the delay in handing over the possession of the flats for the reason th
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
