Case nº First Appeal No. 473 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 01, 2013 (case 1. A.S.Chakravarthy, 2. A. Sandhya Chakravarthy Vs M/s. Asvasidh Homes Builder & Developer)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Kumar Saini, Advocate
PresidentVinay Kumar, Presiding Member
Resolution DateAugust 01, 2013

Order:

Vinay Kumar, Presiding Member

  1. The complaint of the present appellants against respondent/M/s. Asvasidh Homes and its managing partners was dismissed by the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CCSR/1733/2012. The State Commission came to a conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable before it and therefore directed the same to be return to the Complainants. The decision is sought to be challenged in the present proceedings.

  2. Challenging the order of the State Commission, the Complainants filed a revision petition under Section 21 B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, terming it as a review petition. The same has been admitted as an appeal before this Commission and taken up for consideration under Section 19 of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986.

  3. The appeal has been filed with delay of 59 days for which an application for condonation has subsequently been filed on 25.2.2013. The application has been perused. The main explanation as contained in para 3 thereof is:-

    It is humbly submitted that the Petitioners/appellants have been representing themselves in person before this Hon'ble Commission and as also before the State Commission. That since the services of an Advocate were not utilized by the appellants as a result of the same the appellants had wrongly preferred a Revision Petition instead of a First Appeal. Thus, an unintentional delay was caused in filing of the present First Appeal which was initially filed as a Revision Petition presuming the limitation period to be 90 days.

    In the circumstances of the case, the above explanation is accepted and delay of 59 days is condoned.

  4. While deciding to return the complaint, the State Commission has taken into consideration the nature of relief sought by the Complainant and the fact that the genesis of the complaint lies in purchase of a flat from the OP under a registered sale deed of 30.10.2010. Six months later, the consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission on 28.4.2012. The State Commission has therefore observed that:-

    Considering the nature of the claim and the fact that the title of the flat has already been conveyed to the complainant, and he having been in possession of the property, he can seek rectification of defects and even compensation for any deficiency of service. We fail to understand how he can seek refund of sale consideration and compensation. More so when title as well as possession was transferred in his favour, under...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT