Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Indraprastha Apartment
Owners Association —Appellant
versus
T. Kishore Reddy and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.88 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 29/11/2013 in Complaint No. 148/2010 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 6.2.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 3: Ex-parte
For the Respondent No.2:Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The complainant Association can file a complaint for various consumers under Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which allows a voluntary consumer association to file complaint on behalf of the consumers.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12(1)(b) - Real Estate - Appellant filed a complaint against the respondents that the members of the appellant Association had entered into individual agreements with the builder, opposite party No.1 for purchase of the flats- Purchasers got the possession and entered into the flats they were taken to surprise that the flats were not completed and regular water and sewage connection was not there- Order of the State Commission dated 29.11.2013 cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.
Held: I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. Prayers sought in the complaint relate to deficiencies on the part of the builder. Prima facie the State Commission should have seen whether these prayers relate to the provisions of the agreement or not and whether these prayers can be adjudicated. Clearly, the complainant Association can file a complaint for various consumers under Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which allows a voluntary consumer association to file complaint on behalf of the consumers. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Narne Construction P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & amp; Ors. etc.(supra), it seems that the prayer made in the complaint can be decided by the consumer forums.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that before the last para, the State Commission has not dealt with the issue of prayers whether they can be considered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not. Suddenly in para 6 it has been observed by the State Commission that the prayer in the complaint falls in the domain of Civil Court. No reasons have been given by the State Commission for concluding that the prayers sought in the complaint fall in the domain of Civil Court. Thus, the State Commission’s order is a non-speaking order and no reasons have been assigned for the final finding. In these circumstances, the order of the State Commission dated 29.11.2013 cannot be sustained. Hence, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the State Commission for deciding the complaint on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to all the parties.
Parties to appear before the State Commission on 22.03.2018. (Paras 8 and 9)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s. Indraprastha Apartment Owners Association against the order dated 29.11.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Complaint No.148 of 2010, wherein the consumer complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and liberty has been granted to the complainant to move to the civil court for redressal of the grievances.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a complaint against the respondents that the members of the appellant Association had entered into individual agreements with the builder, opposite party No.1 for purchase of the flats. However, when the purchasers got the possession and entered into the flats they were taken to surprise that the flats were not completed and regular water and sewage connection was not there. It was prayed in the complaint that opposites parties be directed to get regularised the water and sewage connection from the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB). It was also alleged that the DG set or back up supply was not provided by the builder as well as the intercom facility was also not provided. It was prayed that the builder be directed to provide these services. It was further prayed in the complaint that if the opposite party is not able to provide these facilities, an amount of Rs.24,14,624/- may be awarded to the complainant Association to be paid by the opposite party so that Association may provide these facilities.
3. The complaint was resisted on the ground that the opposite party No.1 has no privity of contract with the complainant/appellant as individual agreements were signed with the individual allottees/flat purchasers. The development agreement was signed between opposite party No.1, the builder and land owners opposite parties No.2 and opposite party No.3. The State Commission dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 29.11.2013 by observing as follows:-
“6. The prayer sought for by the complainants to regularize the sanctioning of BWSSB connection by paying the balance amount as demanded by BWSSB with up to date penal interest and to provide DG set for back up power supply and to provide intercom facility for all the apartments. We have carefully gone through the averments made in the complaint. The prayer sought for by the complainant prima facie is the exclusive domain of the civil court. It is also the case of the association representing the flat owners that the OP is obstructing them to use all the common passage to access to sixty feet. Therefore, considering this aspect of the matter we are of the view that the subject matter of the case can be challenged before the competent civil court. Accordingly, we pass the following:
Order
Complaint is dismissed giving liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court if he so advised.”
4. Hence the present appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.09.2016.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the State Commission has erroneously decided that the complaint was not maintainable before the consumer forum and the matter be litigated in the Civil Court. The State Commission has not given any reasoning for coming to this conclusion. Clearly Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act provides that a voluntary consumer association can file a complaint on behalf of the consumers whether the consumers are members of the association or not. Here the complainant is the M/s. Indraprastha Apartment Owners Association (An Association registered under the Karnataka societies Registration Act) and it had filed a complaint on behalf of its members. Moreover, for common facilities, Association can take up the ma
