Abhijith Ramapriyan vs. C. Shivaraju

Held

The High Court held that there was no material before it to take a different view from the factual findings recorded by the District Commission and affirmed by the State Commission. The Court noted that the contentions regarding the complainant's role, COVID-19, pending works, and the technical report had already been raised and considered by the Consumer Commissions. The District Commission had quantified the amount payable based on established material, and the State Commission found no valid ground to interfere. The National Commission had declined to condone the delay in filing the second appeal, thus not disturbing the operative directions of the District Commission. Consequently, the Court found no ground to differ from the affirmed factual findings and dismissed the writ petition. The operative directions of the District Commission, as affirmed by the State Commission, were implicitly upheld.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhijeeth Ramapriyan, is challenging orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore; the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The dispute arose from a construction agreement dated June 12, 2020, between the respondent, C. Shivaraju, and M/s Scenic Beauty Homes Private Limited for a residential building. The respondent alleged delays in construction, defects, incomplete work, and excess charges, including Rs. 5,41,472/- towards GST. The petitioner, associated with the company, was the opposite party. The District Commission awarded compensation for pending work, mental agony, and litigation expenses. The State Commission dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The National Commission dismissed the petitioner's second appeal due to a significant delay in filing, without deciding on merits. The petitioner then filed this writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission erred in holding the petitioner liable for deficiency in service, considering the construction agreement was with M/s Scenic Beauty Homes Private Limited and not the petitioner in his individual capacity, and that the company was not impleaded as a party? The petitioner argued that there was no privity of contract between him and the complainant, and thus no personal liability could be fastened upon him. The respondent contended that the petitioner was an active participant and director of the company, and the consumer forums had jurisdiction. 2. Whether the Consumer Commissions erred in their findings regarding the delay in construction and the alleged defects, despite the petitioner's contentions about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the complainant's interference with the work, and the disputed technical report? The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to external factors and the complainant's actions, and that the technical report was obtained ex-parte. The respondent argued that the delay was admitted and the reasons provided were not acceptable, and that the technical report was considered by the forums.