w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Residents of “O” Block, Platinum City Welfare Association (Regd.), Represented by its Joint Secretary, Sri Shashidharayya Mathad, Bangalore v/s M/s. Sheriff Constructions, A Partnership Firm, Bangalore, Represented by its Managing Partner, Ziaulla Sheriff

    Review Application No. 52 of 2021

    Decided On, 27 October 2021

    At, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bangalore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKAR
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Vijaykumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----



Judgment Text

Order On Admission

Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi, Member

1. The Review Application is filed u/s 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to review the Order dt.25.08.2021 passed in Appeal No.352/2018 before this Commission.

2. The Review Petitioner submitted that the notice was duly served on the petitioner and the petitioner had engaged the service of an advocate to appear before this Commission who in turn filed the vakalath and also filed the version/statement of objections after the stipulated time and as the version/statement of objections was not filed with a supporting application seeking for recalling of the order, this Hon’ble Commission was pleased to note that the version of this respondent is taken as not filed and placed this respondent exparte. The Respondent No.2/petitioner submits that thereafter the complainant proceeded to file the affidavit evidence and marked document No.Ex. C-1 to C-21 and after taking the written arguments of the complainant this Hon’ble Commission proceeded to pass the judgement on 25.08.2021.

3. The petitioner further submitted that the complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to provide Occupancy Certificate in respect of “O” Block of Platinum City to all the owners of the Apartments constructed in Sy.No.47 and 48 of Peenya Village, HMT Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore. The Respondent No.2 has not assured one more lift and as per the sanctioned plan, the respondent No.2 has constructed the required number of lifts and in existence as on today etc., and prayed to set aside the Order dt.25.08.2021.

4. Perused the contents of the complaint, affidavit evidence filed by the complainant. This Commission has passed the Order on 25.08.2021 in CC.No.352/2018 and we would not find any error sought to be reviewed the order because the complainant has filed a complaint and notice was issued to the petitioner and same was served on petitioner and advocate for petitioner appeared before this Commission through his advocate. On 17.01.2019 it was recorded in the order sheet that “advocate for complainant is present and Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 absent and no representation; 45 days are over, hence, version of Opposite Party is taken as not filed and posted for affidavit evidence of complainant by 24.04.2019.” But, on 21.01.2020 after a lapse of one year, it was recorded as “Opposite Party No.2/Review Petitioner has filed version.” Once, the version of petitioner taken as not filed, then it cannot be taken on record without supporting with proper application. Moreover there was no any office endorsement regarding the version of the petitioner on order sheet. The case was posted for affidavit evidence of complainant on 24.04.2019 and the petitioner has sufficient opportunity to file version with supporting appropriate application, but, the petitioner has not taken any steps. It is the gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. Moreover we have not placed the Opposite Party as exparte. Only we have not taken the objection of the Opposite Party on record as because the Opposite Party has not filed any appropriate application. Mere appearance before the Commission and not filing the version and affidavit shows the negligence on the part of the petitioner which shows that the petitioner has accepted all the allegations of the complainant. Hence, in our opinion, the judgement passed by this Commission is just and pr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

oper. We do not find any error sought to be reviewed their Order. If the Revision Petitioner is not satisfied the Order passed by this Commission, he has liberty to prefer the appeal. In view of this, the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be considered. Hence, the following; ORDER The Review Petition is dismissed. Forward free copies to both parties.
O R