Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR
M.S. JAWALKAR, J.
Bhalchandra S/o Govind Mahashabde - Appellant
Versus
Anant s/o Gangadhar Mayee
Writ Petition No.6383 of 2022
Decided on : 16-04-2025
Mrs. swati Paunikar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for respondent
The National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain revision petitions against State Commission orders when no appeal lies, emphasizing the importance of equal opportunity in litigation.
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 19, 21, 25, and 38(3)(a) - Revision petition against State Commission's order - The petitioner, a builder, challenged the State Commission's decision to deny permission to file a written statement in a consumer complaint - The court emphasized the principle of providing equal opportunity to litigants and the jurisdictional limits of the District Commission and National Commission regarding appeals and revisions. (Paras 4, 5, 10, 19, 21, 23)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that the National Commission has the power to entertain revision petitions against orders of the State Commission when no appeal lies, as clarified in the Full Bench decision in Oriental Insurance Company Limited. (Paras 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a landowner, filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner for not allowing him to file a written statement in a dispute regarding a development agreement for a flat scheme. The State Commission set aside the District Commission's order allowing the petitioner to file a written statement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available before the National Commission and that the petition was not maintainable.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the revision petition and the jurisdiction of the District and National Commissions regarding the filing of written statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner had not been deprived of the opportunity to seek redressal and that the National Commission was the appropriate forum for the appeal.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M. S. JAWALKAR, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learnedCounsel for both the parties.
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated21th July 2022 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Circuit Bench, Nagpur in Revision Petition No. RBT/RP/19/18 in Complaint Case No.CC/19/4 and thereby allowed the Revision Petition and directed DCC to decide the complaint expeditiously.
3. It is complaint of The respondent that he is one of the land owner of the ancestral plot situated at Gupte Road, Akola, Distt. Akola bearing Nazul Plot no. 8/37, majoring 390.2 sq. Mtrs. and after the death of his father, the respondent alongwith hisyounger brother and LRs of elder brother became joint owners of the said plot. All the joint owners executed memorandum of understanding and decided to develop the said plot. Development Agreement was executed on 29.4.2016 by all the land owners in favour of petitioners. By this agreement the Petitioner developed and constructed the flat scheme under the provisions of Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act. Accordingly Deed of Declaration executed on 31.1.2017. As per Agreement of Development total cost of the plot was decided to be Rs. 44,39,000/- but present respondent and one of his brother Vinayak Gangadhar Mayee decided to retain flats in lieu of cost of land and rest of the three LRs of Kamlakar Mayee received proportionate cost of the land Rs. 11,75,100/- from the Petitioner. Accordingly Deed of Declaration was executed on 31.1.2017. Irrevocable power of attorney was also executed on 29.4.2016 in favour of Petitioner.
4. Respondent is the land owner and Petitioner is the builders and developers and he has constructed one flat scheme on plot no.8/37 at Gupte road Akola. Out of said flat scheme, one flat no. 201 was retained by respondent. After completion of flat scheme as per Deed of Declaration, the petitioner executed Sale deed in favour of respondent of Flat no. 201 and put him in physical possession of the flat. But the respondent being unsatisfied filed consumer complaint against the petitioner u/s 12 of consumer protection Act, 1986. The complaint admitted and petitioner received notice from District Commission Washim. The petitioner filed application for time to file reply and supply copy of complaint and documents. The petitioner filed application for dismissal of complaint on the ground of maintainability and again sought time for filing written statement. The respondent raised objection and asked to proceed without written statement of petitioner on the ground of limitation of 45 days as well as filed reply to the application for dismissal of complaint. The petitioner has filed application for grant of permission to file written statement. District commission Washim allowed application of petitioner and granted permission to file written statement subject to cost of rs 8800/-. The respondent prefers Revision against the said order before The State Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur which came to be allowed abd order dated 6/7/2019 set aside permission to file written statement was rejected to the petitioner. Hence, being aggrieved from the said order of State Commission Nagpur, the instant petition is being filed as there is no any other remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act 1986 as well as 2019.
5. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that the Learned Members of State Commission failed to consider the settle principle that equal opportunity should be given to the litigants to contest the matter on merits and by following this principle of law, Learned District Commission granted permission to file written statement so as to fare adjudication of the issues by imposing cost of Rs. 8800/- But the Learned Members of said Commission set aside the said order dated 06.07.2019 and delivered impugned Judgment dated 21.07.2022 which needs to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that Learned District Commission rightly held that the Petitioner has not com
