High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Allan D’Souza vs Smt Lucy G M Lobo on 25 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Allan D’Souza vs Smt Lucy G M Lobo on 25 November, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & Byrareddy
  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY 01? NOVEMBER 2Q0'a *._V
PRESENT ' ' V

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D.DINAKARAN, CH1EE_;'3I;s--T:ICET "'

AND

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAED BYRAREBDYZ':  V

WRIT ?ETITION.NO. 145» 2006 ~{c§iv:-Vcdig)

Between

Sr1..A11an D'S()L17;s_;i§' _ , H 
Son of IqL.1at.e C&a.§;'r;1iiVé1 D'S()1;;12:a';
Aged about é1--8'»vYeii.1*_s--.;_ * 
Enjoys C0rf;pie_2; ,* _  '
Ba1n1e1tt.aA,_V   ¥:.;.,
Ma11gaV1V0re?%  00 I}: 

[By Sim. 3R11S11pa11'a'i'1:'hé1',v « _.  'A§'1}_:()(r ate

Adv()(3a1.e)  L »

 V Snii:.L_'Licy*.'G'.*M.'L.-Obo.
'- Wm': 017 ST; RC3 -Lyobo.

Aged' 'abd 1.1.5:  Years,
Abbg-1 G_I3{1"d.(v?{~3.
Suhazn I3a1.€.ery Road,

 '   TfJi;11'1gaivQ:'c--575 003.

@

  ...PETmoNER.

for Shri.B.1,.A(:harya.

. . .RESPOI\.' I..) EN"?

 ~,.(B-:1 _§.h1'%.I3Lz1'3dikz1i Ishwar Bhat, Advocate?)



EJ

This Writ Peiitiion is filed under Ai'1,i(Z1€S 226 arid 227
of the C0nst,it':.L1ii0n of India. praying €10 quash ihe i.ri1piig1'1ed
order passctci by the K8.I'I1E:':'1ak'c3.. Siate COI1Si,i1'1'1€1' Diegsnies

Redressal Comniissioii, Bangai,.'{j_)F1."EhiS':dZe{}?.V'

ANANI) BYRAREDDY gm foil 
Heard the cou'ns"eI 'iii-«e_._fietiti0ner H and the

re-spor1(:'.;en'1,.'

 Ti*1eV'f}1eV:.s '::;ire'"'t.11e1i. the pe1.iii0i1er herein was

 '»..en1';i"._ii:si.e;'<i with fine'"CariSt,ri1e'i:i0i'1 work of the first floor of the

_resp(;;x1tie:tii,7.é'.__re$identia1 house during February 200} and

ih'e_ etist.Q1"iii:Qiist.i"uet,i0.t1 was agreed ai Rs.2,10,00()/-. The

 toiai area ag1*eed to be cons: rLie1:ed was about 429 square

feet}. The. respondent aspired in have an additional

basenieiii room and atrcordiiigly i.1’1STI”U(!T€d the peiitioner to

§

put. up an 2-tdditional basement. room._ the cost. of which was

agreed to be paid over and above the iniiial 23u’11.ount. of

Rs.2,10,OOO/W. When the work was in progress. the

I’€Sp0I1d€i1l’., on receipt’ of the estimate of the total expenses

at Rs.2,81._640.54.~._ had declined to pay the

amount and issued a notice demanding dam-‘§2i’gesA.TlV”vl.l”

complaint’ was lodged before the I)al<;sliw'.i1a Kailnacla l;:)i3SLl.:1fiC'{.'V

Consumer Disputzes Redressalfl 7F.f'()'15L.ini;~. A' ..l\/1'a:11géci(;)li'e:

(heieinafter referred to as the ll"3COIl'1Ii'1i5SiOD;V,..v I'or"'vbr.evity],

which was allowed di1'e_eting the :')e.t_iLio11e1* to pay sum of

Rs.52,832/W within SOL' said order'. the

peiiitim_iei' pi*efe'i'_i*ed:V'fai'1 alppleal bel'o1"e the Commission. There
was delay in i'ilingVt_jii.e"a.p§3eai. The appeal was rejectted on

the gifoundlof lin;1it"ati<31iholding that the grourids urged for

V' .AC()1'1.dEf3I'1ifii1:g the deiay**we're not sulTici.em'. to condone the delay.

_ It: is"tiaisuoindeijxwhieli is ehalle11g.;§ed in this petition.

23,' in the i1'11'pogned order. the Commission has. while

atttgieptiiig the explanation afforded by the petnioner for the

l' -.de–l._21y5 in filing between the end of May and 8"-*3 November

6

2005. has c)p1’11ed i’ls1z;1i. there is no €?X}’)lE1I’1E1l’.iO!’z for 21 l’1.§1’1’l1e1′
week’s delay up to 15.11.2005 when the appeal was aculally

filed and €..l1e1’ef0’r<'3. has moczerscled to r'c:je1’§~1f_()f1

sec:ki11g (‘,()I1ClOI’121tl.0]’1 of delay and 112115; _

dismisseci the appeal. The delay of 340 da1ys~wh_:ii(‘.%3V

sxplamed 1.0 the sa11’s§”acl’:1’or1 of, i.l1§:,_C0i’mi1.iAss~ion’-..{Q1~.,,l.21¢

sL1bs1,z111t.ial Jerziod of delav. bei:’1 ? re’é’C.’t,ed on ;1r150.’3iI1i()I1ljthai
1 ” ~ 5:’ 2 ‘ ~.’ g

there was further delay of 7 d’;:;;é; for \?£–;l”}iL§l;}”‘i.:l1€’l’€;? was no
explanation l’0rtlhc0mi:ri_g’;V.¢_ 1’s :1 As-ir..lcl.l”~x,(ie\\7 taken by the
Commission, especially t1r;1dc?ri”;1 .sI’.a.–i’«:1ijt::-jwhich provides for

alte1’nat’:’v(~3 d1’S:}3’Lil,’€ Vi’esO=i_ui,i;)nV;’:

‘.1–l’e1’1(s:V€’,”:l’1?OL.1l§§l1~«ll” was V\:’il.l’1lJ1 the disc?1’eii.01’1 of 1.116?
Co11111’1issi.tm_ ll()Vl12iv_(2 V;.’~s§jc’:re. the

l’Llel’a:y, the appeal before l,l”1t’.’ C0mmissi.o1’1 is

c0r1€i–r.m€:.d. ‘V “Tile order 1’mpL1gned is set aside. The appeal is

_”d.i]’f3CT.E3dV”‘1.O be restoxfed to file au’1.d. the Commission shall

procreeci to hfiéll’ ihe same on meriis
to the: resp0r1cient.s.

The VV’£’i1. paatitiorl is allowed.

index: Yes/Not.”

Web I~I0sE: ,–?T§3
nv ~

aftc->1′ issL1ance of __1’10{:’ce

.S&/u
UDGE