Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member and Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Member
C. Venkata Rani – Petitioner
versus
B.S. Uma Maheswara Rao – Respondent
Revision Petition No.2041 of 2011
(Against the Order dated 15/04/2011 in Appeal No.509/2010 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 1.12.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.R. Vasantha Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Additional Alternate remedy – When a consumer avails such remedy, the lis has to be decided in its entirety.
(2) Inseparable part of dispute – The dispute before it[State Commission] had to be decided by the forum as a whole, an inseparable part thereof could not have been relegated to a civil court in the way and manner as has been done by the State Commission.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] – Real Estate – Delay in handing over possession of Flat – State Commission had modified the award made by the District Commission to the extent of reducing the lumpsum compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The rest of the District Commission’s Order had been confirmed – Revision filed against order of State Commission – Whether State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction illegally as well as with material irregularity – State Commission’s Order, in addition to being quite nebulously and somewhat incoherently articulated, suffers from manifest illogicalities and infirmities. Some of the concluding observations made by the State Commission betray out a kind of pathetic confusion for having drawn out two mutually inconsistent calculations regarding the outstanding balance amount payable by the complainant to the opposite party, one calculated in the earlier Order dated 31.01.2011 and the other in the later Order dated 15.04.2011. The expression of its inability to correct itself just because it had already made a mistake while passing the earlier Order was due to its own doing as the decision in the cross appeals (though heard together) was not pronounced together as it ought to have been – Common order set aside, matter remanded to State Commission.
Held, Rather than deciding the lis in its entirety, as it was required to do, it disposed it by confirming its self-admitted erroneous calculations in its earlier Order along with an observation that if an excess amount has been collected by the opposite party from the complainant, the complainant may recover the same by filing a civil suit by invoking Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963. It cannot be that while deciding the lis an absurd untenable situation is created and an observation made that one party may take its residual grievance/s if and as any to a civil court. This approach is legally untenable. The two basic issues in this dispute were, one, the amount actually due from the complainant to the opposite party as balance consideration towards the subject flat and, two, the just and equitable compensation for delay in offering possession of the subject flat. These two issues were required to be duly examined and unequivocally (and correctly) determined by the State Commission while deciding the cross appeals filed by the rival sides, together, in the normal wont, without creating an absurd untenable situation. [Pars 7, 8]

ORDER

This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 31.01.2010 in appeal no. 679 of 2010 and appeal no. 681 of 2010 and the Order dated 15.04.2011 in appeal no. 509 of 2010 passed by the State Commission arising out of the Order dated 26.03.2010 in complaint no. 637 of 2008 of the District Commission.

2. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 26.03.2010 of the District Commission, the impugned Orders dated 31.01.2011 and dated 15.04.2011 of the State Commission and the petition.

3. The dispute relates to a flat bought by the complainant (the petitioner herein) from the opposite party (the respondent herein).

The District Commission partially allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to complete the balance works and hand over the subject flat to the complainant within three months on receipt of Rs.63,450/- being half of the balance amount payable by the complainant. It further directed the complainant to deposit the other half of the balance amount of Rs.63,450/- with the District Commission within one month, for the opposite party to withdraw the same after delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant. It also directed the opposite party to pay the complainant Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f. October 2008 till the handing over of possession of the flat towards loss of rent along with lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.

The complainant filed appeal before the State Commission, being appeal no. 509 of 2010. The opposite party also filed appeal before the State Commission, being appeal no. 681 of 2010.

Another complaint against the same opposite party, being complaint no. 635 of 2008, was filed by the husband of the complaint herein. The Order of the District Commission in the said complaint no. 635 of 2008 was challenged by the opposite party before the State Commission by way of appeal no. 679 of 2010.

As such two appeals of the opposite party, one being appeal no. 681 of 2010 arising out of the District Commission’s Order in complaint no. 637 of 2008 of the complaint herein and another being appeal no. 679 of 2010 arising out of the District Commission’s Order in complaint no. 635 of 2008 of another complainant (the husband of the complainant herein), were filed before the State Commission, together with the complainant’s appeal, being appeal no. 509 of 2010 arising out of the District Commission’s Order in complaint no. 637 of 2008.

4. The learned counsel for both sides submit that the arguments on the said three appeals were heard by the State Commission together on the same date. The State Commission first pronounced its common Order in appeal no. 679 of 2010 and appeal no. 681 of 2010 on 31.01.2011. It then pronounced its Order in appeal no. 509 of 2010 subsequently on 15.04.2011. The complainant respondent in appeal no. 679 of 2010 (the husband of the complainant herein) as well as the opposite party appellant (the opposite party herein as well) are not agitating the matter further. The learned counsel submit that the matter between the two has been finally closed. The complainant in complaint no. 637 of 2008 (the appellant in appeal no. 509 of 2010) has filed the instant revision praying for setting aside the Order dated 31.01.2011 in appeal no. 679 of 2010 and appeal no. 681 of 2010 and the Order dated 15.04.2011 in appeal no. 509 of 2010.

5. Vide the operative portion of its common Order dated 31.01.2011 passed in appeal no. 679 of 2010 and appeal no. 681 of 2010 the State Commission had modified the award made by the District Commission to the extent of reducing the lumpsum compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The rest of the District Commission’s Order had been confirmed. (“In the result, the appeals are allowed modifying the orders of the District Forum to the extent of relief of payment of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the complainants.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday