Back
2004(3) CPR 613
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B. Sudershan Reddy and K. C. Bhanu, JJ.
Eureka Estates Private Limited - Petitioner
versus
A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and others -Respondents
W.P. No. 25817 of2003
Decided on 12-10-2004
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. V. Venkataramana, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3:Mr. E. Manohar, Senior Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTConsumer Disputes Redressal Agencies which are not vested with powers of Civil Court are not entitled to exercise the review jurisdiction.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(4) - Review jurisdiction. Whether Forum under the Act had power to exercise review jurisdiction? No Consumer Redressal Agencies which are not vested with powers of Civil Court are not entitled to exercise review jurisdiction.
Held: It is thus clear that a reading of conspectus of provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under makes it clear that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as such, are not applicable to the proceedings before the District Forum or State Commission, as the case may be, except to the extent indicated in sub-sec.(4) of Section 13 of the Act. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies, which are not vested with the powers of Civil Court, are not entitled to exercise the review jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(Para 22 )
In the absence of any specific provision conferred upon them by the Act and the Rules framed there under, the power of substantive review does not exist in the District Forum or the State Commission. The power of review is not an incidental one but a substantive power unless specifically conferred, does not in here in quasi-judicial bodies constituted and created under the statute.
(Para 23)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(4) - Constitution of India - Article 222 - Writ of certiorari questioning legality of order passed by State Commission reviewing its order State Commission in its final judgment had granted option to petitioner-builder either to hand over flats complete in all respect or refund the amounts with interest together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakhs - By impugned order, given in application of complainant, it granted choice to complainant about delivery of flats as against alternative relief Impugned order could not be treated as correction or rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistake and was beyond even jurisdiction of review power-Writ was maintainable and could not be dismissed on plea that alternative remedy was available to petitioner. (Paras 33 to 37)
Result: Petition allowed.
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. - 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.LA. No. 1392 of 2003(wrongly described as C.D.LA. No. 1939 of2001) 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/- 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 19-6-2003, 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 unauthorisedly. 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 unauthorized 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 that the very construction is unauthor
