2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 676
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Dr. Chiran Babu A. – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Vasudhaa Projects – Respondent
SC/29/A/970/2014
Date of filing: O4.O8.2014, 11.O8.2O14 Date of Disposal: 02.02,2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: O2Nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 coRAM: HoN'BLE Mr. JUSTTCE T.G. SHTVASHANKARE GowDA -
PRESTDENT and HON,BLE MTs. DIWASHREE M - LADY MEMBER sct29 | At970 & 987 t20L4 ln A/97O/2014:
1. Dr.Chiran Babu.A
2. Chaitra Priya.A
AII are R/at No.232/LO, No.60, M. K.Sarovara Apartments, 22nd cross, Jayanagar 6th Block, Bengaluru-70 Appellant/s (By Sri.Jwala Kumar, Advocate)
vs
1. Vasudhaa Projects Rep, by Partners Partner.l: C.Ramesh No.79/L,6th 'B' main road, Tata Silk Farm, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-28.
2. Partner.2: V.A.V.Shiva Reddy No.L3/44,l't floor, 33d cross, 11 main road, 4th T block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-41.
(By Sri.Sadashiva Reddy, Advocate)
3. Balaram Gupta R/at No.23,'McDowell' Court, Bridgewater, New Jersey-08807, USA.
4. B.G.Ashok Kumar No.232/10, No.60, M.K.Sarovara Apartments, 22nd cross, Jayanagar 6th Block, Bengaluru-70 Respondent/s (By Sri.H.R.Krishna, Advocate)
ln A1987 l2OL4=
1. Vasudhaa Projects Rep. by Partners Partner.l : C,Ramesh Reddy No.79/t,6th 'B' main road, Tata Silk Farm, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-28.
2. Partner.2: V.A,V.Shiva Reddy No.l3/44,1't floor, 33'd cross, 11 main road, 4th T block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-41 Appellant/s (By Sri.Sadashiva Reddy, Advocate)
vs
1. Dr.Chiran Babu.A
2. Chaitra priya.A 3. Rajasekar.G.B
4.
Gowramma.T.M W/o Rajasekar.G.B All are R/at No.232/lO, No.60, M.K.Sarovara Apartments, 22no cross, Jayanagar 6th Block, Bengaluru-70.
(By Sri.Jwala Kumar, Advocate)
5. Balaram Gupta R/at No.23,'McDowell, Court, Bridgewater, New Jersey-08807, USA.
6. B.G.Ashok Kumar No.232/70, No.60, M.K.Sarovara Apartments, 22nd cross, Jayanagar 6th Block, Bengaluru-7O Respondent/s (By Sri.H.R. Krishna, Advocate)
COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUsrrcE T.G. sHTvAsHANKARE GowDA, ,RESTDENT)
These Appeals are filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1996 (in short Cp Act) by Appeilants challenging the order datedi}4.O7.2Ot4 passed in CC/2500/2012 on the file of 3d Addt., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban (in short the District Commission).
2.
A/970/20L4 is fited by Comptainanrs.l to 4 (in short Comptainants)
and A/9g7/2014 is fited by Opposite Parties.l & 2 (in short Ops).
Both appeats are taken together for common disposal.
3.
In A/970/2014, Respondents.l to 4 are Ops.1 to 4, in A/997/20t4 Respondents.l to 4 are the Complainants.l to 4 and Respondents.S & 6 are the OPs.3 & 4 before the District Commission. The Rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.
4.
The Brief facts of the case are that:
Complainants.l & 2 are brother and sister.
Complainants.3 & 4 are husband and wife. Ops.1 & 2 are the builders. Op.3 is land owner. Op,4 is brother of Op.3. oPs.1 to 3 have entered into JDA dtd.26.05.2010 for construction of apartment in the property bearing no.232/t0, New No.E0, pID No.59_52_60, 22nd cross, 6th block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru_56001g, wherein Complainants.l & 2 together have purchased flat no.G1, Ground Floor, measuring super built up of area L72O sq.ft, undivided share 600 sq.ft, for sale consideration of Rs.46 lakhs. Complainants.3 &
4 together have purchased flat no.S2, Second Floor, measuring super built up area of 900 sq.ft, undivided share 300 sq.ft, for sale consideration of Rs.26 lakhs. Op.3 is the owner of flat no.Fl, First Floor. Op.4 is the owner of flat no.Sl, Second Floor. In the Third Floor, there are 2 units i.e T1 & T2 are in the occupation by Sri.B,G.Manjunath Babu, brother of Op.3 and Sri.Kailash B Gupta, son of Op.3 respectivery. ops.1 & 2 unauthorizedry constructed the third floor with two units T1 & T2 in collusion with Ops.3 & 4 without sanctioned plan. Inspite of entire sale consideration was paid, no amenities were provided to Ground and First floor for flat nos.Gl & 52. Flats are not proper for dwelling. In view of unauthorized construction