SAPTAGIRISA CONSTRUCTIONS & 2 ORS; VALLU SANDEEP; VALLU SIVA SAILAJA; VALLU SRUTHI Vs. P V NAGARATNAM W/O P SRINIVAS RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 17.02.2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in application C.C.I.A. No. 1065/2016 filed in consumer complaint CC/12/2011, filed before the State Commission by the respondent/complainant, vide which, the said application was allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that he had entered into a development agreement on 24.09.2007 with the appellant/opposite party (OP) vide which, he hired the services of the appellant/OP for construction of apartments of 18000 sq. ft. on the land measuring 770.77 sq. yards belonging to him in Madinaguda village, Rangareddy District. However, even after three years from the date of the said agreement, the OP did not initiate the construction and the development work, as per the agreed terms and conditions. Further, the OP started selling flats from the share of the complainant as well, causing huge financial loss as well as mental agony to the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the State Commission, seeking directions to the OP to pay compensation on account of non-construction of certain portions of the project. The said complaint was allowed vide order of the State Commission dated 20.03.2012, vide which, the OP was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 55,55,000/- to the complainant, alongwith compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and cost of litigation as Rs. 20,000/-. During proceedings before the State Commission, the appellant/OP did not file their written version to the complaint, neither their evidence affidavit was filed on record. The OP builder challenged the said order by way of first appeal no. 666/2013 before this Commission, which was decided on 15.10.2014. It was ordered with the consent of both the parties that the consumer complaint C.C. No. 12/2011 be restored to the Board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication. The appellant/OP were allowed to file their written version to the complaint and also to lead evidence in support of their case. During pendency before the State Commission, the complainant filed an application in the shape of an affidavit, C.C.I.A. No. 1605/2016, through which, it was pleaded that certain documents filed by the OP should be given back to them. The State Commission passed an order dated 17.02.2017 on the said application, which states as follows:-

(3.) Being aggrieved against the above order of the State Commission, the OP builder has challenged the same by way of the present appeal. It was pleaded during arguments by the learned counsel for the appellants that the State Commission had passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed by the appellants. Moreover, the said order had been passed, without stating any reason for allowing the application. The learned counsel stated that the application C.C.I.A. No. 1605/2016 was not maintainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel also stated that they were prepared to file the original documents on record. The complainant had failed to establish that the documents being filed by them were bogus or fabricated.