BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

RA.NO.05 OF 2025 IN RP.NO.57 OF 2024 AGAINST ORDERS IN IA.NO.125/2024 IN EA.NO.10/2014 IN CC.NO.644/2009, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-II, HYDERABAD Between:

Kalva Praveen Kumar, S/o.Kalva Prakash Rao, Aged about: 45 years, R/o.Sai Pranavam, 10, Anand Nagar Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

.…Petitioner/Respondent/Opp.Party And N.Surendra Kalyan, S/o.Vara Prasada Rao, R/o.SRT-539, First Floor, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad.

Now presently at R/o.SRT-613, 2^nd Floor, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad.

…..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent/OP: M/s.P.Lakshman Goud Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Admission stage QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL THURSDAY, THE 2 9TH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE *******

ADMISSION STAGE Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, Member – Judicial)

1. The Review Application is filed under Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as against the order of this Commission dated 15.04.2025 in RP.No.57/2024 by the Petitioner/Opposite Party.

2. The brief contention made in this Review Application is that the Petitioner filed RP.No.57/2024 against the order of conviction made by the Commission below with a request to set aside the said order dated 05.07.2024 in IA.No.125/2024 in EA.No.10/2014 in CC.No.644/2009 by the District Commission-II, Hyderabad and also afford an opportunity to the Petitioner to comply with the orders of the District Commission by doing a fresh compliance of the incomplete works or assess the value of works to be payable by the Revision Petitioner to the Respondent/Complainant and consequently set aside the order of conviction.

3. The brief contention of the Review Petitioner in his affidavit is that the offence U/s.27/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or 2019 are compoundable in nature; that he had not filed the RP.No.57/2024 against the order of conviction but only made a request to provide an opportunity to comply with the order of the District Commission made in CC.No.644/2009 or in the alternative fix the amount for the incomplete works to be payable by the Petitioner and on such payment, requested to set aside the order of conviction. It is further averred that no provision is made in the C.P.Act either 1986 or 2019 or U/s.27A of C.P.Act, 1986 and Section 73 of the C.P.Act, 2019; that what to be done, against the order of conviction passed by the District Commission. As the magisterial powers are vested in pursuance of Cr.P.C. 1973, the Commission below shall be considered as a Magistrate Court and the State Commission shall be considered as Sessions Court and same is the case with National Commission against the original orders of the State Commission. It is further contended that as the offences are compoundable in nature, the Sessions Court/State Commission is vested with powers U/s.320 (6) of Cr.P.C. 1973 while exercising the powers of Sessions Court U/s. 397 and 398 of Cr.P.C. In nutshell, it is the contention that this Commission while pronouncing the orders under RP.No.57/2024 not framed any point in the lines “whether it is a fit case to invoke the powers U/s.320 (6) Cr.P.C. regarding the compoundable nature of the offences?” hence, the Review.

4. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner at the admission stage itself.

5. Now the point for determination is –

Whether powers are vested to the State Commission to entertain the Review? If so, is it a fit case to allow the Revision Petition No.57/2024?

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be addressed as they are arrayed in the complaint in CC.No.644/2009.

7. Point:-

Admittedly, CC.No.644/2009 was allowed on 15.12.2010.

The Complainant filed EA.No.10/2014 for non-compliance of the orders made in CC.No.644/2009 and aggrieved by the orders made in EA.No.10/2014, the Opposite Party filed appeal in FA.No.201/2017. This Commission dismissed the FA by arriving at a c