ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar)

1. This writ petition is filed questioning the order of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad-1st respondent in RP No. 180 of 2008, dated 12.8.2008 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the third respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioners herein alleging that they have raised a wall dividing common parking area into two parts and constructed independent house illegally in part of the parking area besides pent house over the terrace etc. The petitioners herein disputed the said allegation and contended that the building was constructed in 1993 and there is a lot of difference in the features of the building which existed then and today. In order to establish the allegations, the third respondent filed an application seeking appointment of an advocate-commissioner to note down the physical features of the said apartments called ‘Siva’s Palace Phase-I’. The said application was resisted by the petitioners inter alia on the ground that such a petition is not maintainable. By order of the District Forum dated 23.6.2008 the said application was allowed on the ground that the builder-petitioners herein will not be put to any inconvenience and the report of the commissioner would be necessary to elicit the truth of the allegations and consequently an advocate commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features with the assistance of a qualified civil engineer at the time of executing the warrant. The aforesaid order was questioned by the petitioners herein before the State Commission by filing RP No. 180 of 2008. Under the impugned order, the State Commissioner has dismissed the said revision. Hence this writ petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the third respondent-complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) no such powers, as are exercisable by a civil court, are available to the authorities under the Act. Even otherwise, it is contended that the allegations made by the third respondent-complainant are required to be established by him by leading evidence and the aforesaid attempt to get an advocate commissioner appointed, in reality, amounts to collecting evidence by the complainant through process of court. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Yogendra Builders and another Vs. Vidya Paradise Owners’ Welfare Association and another [1] to contend that under the Act the consumer fora have no such power, as Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) is not extended to the authorities under the Act.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the third respondent-complainant has also relied upon the same decision referred to above (1st supra) to contend that whenever the consumer fora viz., State Commission or National Commission is satisfied that an opinion of expert is essential for proper adjudication, they can exercise such power. He also contends that local inspection of the building by a qualified engineer along with advocate commissioner will only apprise the Consumer Forum of factual situation with respect to premises and as such no prejudice would be caused. He also contends that the District Forum as well as State Commission can exercise powers of a civil court and a procedural power to appoint a commissioner was felt necessary and as such it cannot be said that the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

5. We have considered the submissions on either side. Before going into the validity of the impugned orders, it is necessary to notice that the very objects and reasons of the Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes by a quasi-judicial machinery at the District, State and Central levels and the said quasi-judicia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document