2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 7775
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. RAVISHANKAR, J, MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, M
M/S SRINIVASA DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. POLA SRINIVASULU – Appellant
Versus
SRI. ATANU KUMAR DASH – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2192/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2205/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2216/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2197/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2194/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2199/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2210/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2203/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2204/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2212/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2215/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2207/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2218/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2220/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2232/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2233/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2226/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2224/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2202/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2211/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2234/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2229/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2228/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2206/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2231/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2219/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2236/2024 | FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/2223/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NEMO
For the Respondents: NEMO
An appellant's failure to adequately justify a significant delay in filing an appeal results in dismissal, affirming the lower court's decisions.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections regarding consumer rights and obligations - Appellant directed to comply with multiple construction and licensing requirements by the District Commission - Appellant claims no deficiency in service and the requirements were not agreed upon in the sale agreement. - Delay of appeal was not adequately justified and it was dismissed as lacking merit. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Delay - Not sufficient grounds presented for condonation; medical certificate alone deemed inadequate. (Paras 4-7)
Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged directions by District Commission regarding obtaining necessary constructions documents and liability for expenses due to delays and incompletion of apartment facilities.
Findings of Court:
Established the appellant did not contest the matter effectively at District Commission and the directives were valid and necessary for completion of the project.
Issues: Main issues included the sufficiency of grounds for appeal and whether the District Commission acted outside its jurisdiction in their orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the delay application was not justified and upheld the necessity of the District Commission’s directives for the appellant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant disputes necessity of compliance for construction permits. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. delayed appeal cited due to health; lack of evidence deemed insufficient. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. negligence during trial proceedings supports dismissal of appeal. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court affirms non-merit of appeal based on delay. (Para 8) |
ORDER
03-12-2024
ORDER ON ADMISSION
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appellant approached this Commission against the order passed by the District Commission which directed this appellant to comply the following;
a) To direct the Opposite Parties to do and comply all that are required and to obtain apartment building construction completion certificate (CC) and occupancy certificate (OC) from the BBMP authorities as mandatorily required in law.
b) To direct the Opposite Parties to do and comply all that are required and to obtain No-objection Certificate from the Pollution Control Board and Clearance for the Sewage Treatment Plant issued by the concerned Government Authority.
c) To direct the Opposite Parties to do and comply all that are required and to provide all Licenses, Approvals, Plumbing/ Electrical Plans, NOCs for operation of assets, related documentation, etc. to Sai Poorna Premier Apartment Owner’s Association.
d) To direct the Opposite Parties to do and comply all that are required and to clearly demarcate 3-acres of landed property and its boundaries (i.e. schedule “A” property), make clear segregation between commercial and residential complex and provide an official plan and survey sketch of asset distribution between them.
e) To direct the Opposite Parties to do and comply all that are required and to install all fire safety infrastructures and get necessary no-objection certificate from the fire department.
f) To direct the Opposite Parties to provide as per original building plan separate entry from and exit towards on either side of the public road frontage is such a way that the driveway goes around the building allowing one way movement of vehicles.
g) To direct the Opposite Parties to do and comply all that are required and to install rain water harvesting system and solar power water heating system in “Sai Poorna Premier Apartment Complex”.
h) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a compensation and damages and also the share of expenditure the complainant is required to bear for completing various un-complied and under finished work to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) including towards mental agony, expenses incurred by the flat owners, devaluation of the property/flat owned by the complainant.
i) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay/reimburse balance betterment charges of Rs.34,41,078/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Forty One Thousand Seventy Eight only) to the owners’ Association viz Sai Poorna Premier Apartment Owners’ Association as stated in para 25 above or pay the same to the individual complainant’s in such proportion, pari passu.
j) To direct the Opposite Parties to reimburse the cost of installation of Rain water harvesting system incurred by the Owners Association i.e. cost of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) as stated in para 26 above.
k) Order and direct the Opposite Parties to pay the cost of the proceedings.
l) Order and direct the Opposite Parties to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on all the items of amounts claimed from the date it was due to till realization.
m) To order and direct the Opposite Parties to segregate the land parcel pertaining to the commercial complex and the residential apartments, and also to segregate and separate all amenities including water connection and electricity between the commercial complex and the residential apartments.
2. This appellant submits that the respondents have taken sale deed registered in favour of them by the owner/landlord and the flat was not sold by the appellant in favour of the respondent. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of this appellant. The respondent without kn