1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.35449 OF 2024 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: MRS. MOSEENA BANU W/O SYED AMEER, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D NO.39, L I G 4TH STAGE, HUDCO COLONY, BANNIMANTAP EXTENSION, MYSURU – 570 015. KARNATAKA. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AMEER, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI, GPO COMPLEX, F BLOCK, AVIATION COLONY, INA COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110 023, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 . KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANGALORE, GROUND FLOOR, BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE, HIGH GROUNDS, NEAR CHALUKYA HOTEL, BANGALORE – 560 001. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 3 . DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 2 NO.1542, ANIKETANA ROAD (BEHIND JAGADAMBA PETROL BUNK) C & D BLOCK, KUVEMPU NAGARA, MYSORE – 570 009 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 4 . MRS. SALMA SIDDIQA CHIEF PROMOTOR/DIRECTOR, & AUTHORIZED PERSON, TIPPU SULTAN SHG’s TIPPU SULTAN TRUST, MYSURU. OFF: #23, BALAJI COMPLEX, FIRST FLOOR, RING ROAD, SATELLITE BUS STAND, SATHAGALLI CIRCLE, MYSURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BILAL AHMED SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/03/2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC), NEW DELHI, IN REVISION PETITION NO.56/2023, REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE, AS PER ANNEXURE-E; b) QUASH THE SUBSEQUENT REMAND JUDGMENT DATED 14/11/2024 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE, IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.111/2020(R), AS PER ANNEXURE-F, ON THE GROUNDS OF ILLEGALITY AND PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, T.M. NADAF J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF 3 CAV ORDER ( PER: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ) This peculiar petition under Article-226 of Constitution of India is by an unsuccessful complainant seeking the following reliefs: “Wherefore, the Petitioner most respectfully pray's that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: 1. Call for Records and Quash Judgments Issue a writ of Certiorari to: a) Quash the judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, in Revision Petition No. 56 of 2023, remanding the matter to the 3rd Respondent, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mysore, as per Annexure E. b) Quash the subsequent remand judgment dated 14.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mysore, in Consumer Complaint No. 111/2020 (R), as per Annexure F, on the grounds of illegality and procedural irregularities. II. Reinstate Prior Judgments Reinstate the order dated 03.10.2020 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mysore, in Consumer Complaint No. 111/2020, as per Annexure B, and uphold the judgment of the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 319/2021, 4 dated 05.04.2022 as per Annexure C, ensuring justice and appropriate relief for the Petitioner. III. Mandamus for Departmental Inquiry Issue a writ of Mandamus directing a departmental inquiry into the conduct of the technical member of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, and the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mysore, to ensure accountability and procedural fairness. IV. Compensation for Delay Direct the 4th Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per day to the Petitioner, commencing from 26.06.2020, until the date of registration of the Sale Deed, as compensation for the undue delay caused by the Respondents. V. Damages for Mental Agony Direct the 4th Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh only) to the Petitioner as damages for the mental agony, harassment, and suffering caused by their actions. VI. Additional Reliefs Grant any other relief deemed just, equitable, and appropriate in the interest of justice, including the costs incurred by the Petitioner in these proceeding.” 2. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under: 5 The petitioner was a member of Trust and its foundation under the name and style of “Planet T” Rural Housing Project, which is a ‘Self Help Group’, which had allotted a residential plot to the petitioner after deposit of certain amount. As the Registration of the site was not effected and also possession of the property was not given, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysuru (for short ‘Forum’) in Complaint No.111/2020, seeking possession as well as registration of the sale deed. 3. The respondent despite notice remained absent and was placed exparte. The petitioner was examined as PW-1 and has filed her examination-in-chief by way of an Affidavit and marked 9 documents as Exhibit-P1 to P9. The Forum after considering the oral and documentary evidence allowed the complaint in part. Subsequent to the order by the Forum, the petitioner put the award in Execution being E.P.No.2 of 2021. 4. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (‘State Commission’ for short), contending that the petitioner is not a consumer and the respondent is not a service provider and there is no deficiency of service as contemplated under the provisions of 6 the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short ‘Act of 2019’). The State Commission taking note of the fact that notice sent through registered post, returned with an endorsement ‘refused or not available in the house or shop closed or addressee not in the station’, amounts to due service of notice and as the respondent has not chosen to participate in the proceedings, declined to hold that there is violation of principles of natural justice and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 5. Subsequent to dismissal of the appeal, the respondent herein preferred a Review Application No.39/2022 seeking to review the order passed by the State Commission in the appeal. The State Commission declined to entertain and dismissed the review petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘National Commission’ for short) in Revision Petition No.56 of 2024, calling in question the order dated 05.04.2022, in appeal passed by the State Commission, dismissing the appeal. 6. The respondent has taken a specific contention that neither the petitioner is a consumer, nor the respondent is a service provider or there is any deficiency of service as contemplated under the provisions of Act of 2019, as has been urged before the State 7 Commission. Further, it was contended that the Respondent-Trust is a ‘no profit, no loss body’ and no consideration has been taken for providing service to the petitioner. Further, contended that both the Forum, as well as the State Commission failed to consider the same and also the fact that the petitioner has suppressed material fact and not come up with clean hands. 7. The National Commission, having taken note of the vouchers produced along with the petition, having made repayment to the complainant–petitioner, along with the documents for cancellation of the unit, and the criminal cases filed against each other by the petitioner, as well as respondent, including the writ petition before this Court, allowed the petition on the broader prospect of principles of natural justice and set-aside the order passed by the Forum, as well as the State Commission and remanded the matter to the Forum to decide the matter on merits, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. 8. On remand, the Forum, after completion of pleadings framed three points for consideration, which reads as follows: “13. Now the points that arise for the consideration of this commission are:- 8 1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service by the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief sought? 3. To what order?” 9. The petitioner filed an affidavit in lieu of evidence and examined as PW-1 and produced 27 documents marked as Exhibits- P1 to P27. So also the affidavit of two witnesses to substantiate her claim and closed her side. The respondent has filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced five documents and marked as Exhibit-R1 to R5. 10. The Forum upon hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, answered the points framed for consideration against the petitioner and dismissed the complaint by its order dated 14.09.2024. The reason assigned for dismissal of the complaint, more specifically at paragraph No.22 of the judgment, passed by the Forum in C.C.No.111/2020, reproduced by us as under: “22. When the complainant has already got cancelled membership and received the amount paid by her the question of the complainant claiming the allotment of site and executing of registered title deed will not arise. More over admittedly the land has not been developed and site has not been formed. The complainant has not disputed her 9 signature on Ex.R1 to R3. The complainant has filed the affidavit of two witnesses. The complainant has not adduced further evidence after filling of the version by the opposite party denying the receipt of the refund of the amount . The evidence of the witness is not supported with any documents. The SHG leader namely natharunnissa is the proper person to depose regarding the affixing of the signature on blank or printed forms without explaining the contents of the documents. When the complainant has received the refund of the amount paid by her in the year 2020 itself as per the declaration Ex R4, the question of asking for executing registered sale deed in respect of the site and delivery of possession does not arise. As such there is no any deficiency in service by the opposite party. Hence, we answer this point in the negative.” 11. Subsequent to dismissal of the complaint, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition calling in question the order passed by the National Commission in the revision petition, as well as the order passed by the Forum, with other reliefs, stated supra. 12. Heard Sri.Syed Ameer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Bilal Ahmed Shariff, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 13. Sri.Syed Ameer submitted that the National Commission failed to consider the well-reasoned order passed by the Consumer Forum dated 03.10.2020, as well as the order by the State 10 Commission dated 05.04.2022. Both the Forum, as well as the State Commission after taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, observed that the respondent refused the Notice and not participated in the proceedings, runs the risk of adverse order. 14. The National Commission ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of both Forum and the State Commission. He has further contended that there are serious procedural lapses on the part of the National Commission, while passing the order impugned dated 22.03.2024 in revision petition, the reason being the order is passed by a Single Member. He submits that as per Section-58 of Act of 2019, which enjoins the jurisdiction to the National Commission the power of revision, be heard and disposed atleast by a Division Bench, as such, the order passed by the Single Member of the National Commission cannot be termed as an order in law, and sought to allow the petition and set- aside the order passed by the National Commission, as well as the Forum subsequent to remand. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire writ petition papers, the only point that arises for our consideration is: 11 “Whether the petitioner has made out a case, which requires interference by this Court in the order passed by the National Commission as well as Forum, requiring issuance of Notice on the respondent?” 16. Our answer to the above question is in ‘negative’ for the following reasons: The petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondent contending that there is a deficiency of service and she being the member of the respondent-trust, entitled for registration of the site which was allotted to her and for possession. The respondent has failed to provide service as assured to the petitioner, which amounts to deficiency of service. At an earlier point of time, the Forum passed an exparte order placing the respondent exparte, due to her absence, despite notice issued by the Forum. The appeal filed against the order came to be dismissed holding that the respondent was not diligent in prosecuting the complaint before the Forum. 17. As the respondent has raised legal points for the application of provisions of the Act of 2019, for the shortcomings alleged by the petitioner, requires consideration as has been found by the National Commission. The National Commission taking into consideration the violation of the principles of natural justice and the legal points urged which requires consideration, upon providing 12 an opportunity to the respondent to contest the matter, allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter to the Forum to consider the complaint afresh, after affording opportunity to both the sides. 18. The petitioner subsequent to remand, participated in the proceedings before the Forum, examined herself and produced additional documents. The respondent was examined as DW-1 and produced 5 documents. The Forum after appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary has come to a conclusion that there is no deficiency of service by the respondent, which requires a direction to the respondent to answer the prayer sought by the petitioner in the complaint. 19. The Forum having found that the petitioner has already cancelled her membership and received the amount claimed by her, which was paid to the respondent for the allotment of site, held that the prayer sought in the complaint does not survive for consideration. The Forum considering the fact of refund of money by the respondent and receipt of the same by the petitioner, has held that, there is no question of executing registered sale deed and delivery of possession of the site, and there is no deficiency of service by the respondent. 13 20. It is germane to mention the conduct of the petitioner. If the petitioner is really aggrieved by the order of the National Commission, would have come before this Court, calling in question the order of the National Commission, instead he had actively participated in the proceedings in the complaint before the Forum. The Petitioner having participated in the complaint subsequent to remand and having became unsuccessful, now cannot turn around and challenge the order of the National Commission, as well as the order passed by the Forum after remand. The conduct of the petitioner amounts to acquiescence. 21. So far as contention of Sri.Syed that the order passed by a Single Member of the National Commission, is not sustainable and against the provision of Section-58 of Act of 2019 has no legs to stand, reason being as per Rule-16 of Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Rules, 2020 (for short ‘Rules 2020’) which prescribes that the proceedings shall be conducted by the member/members as has been constituted by the President of the National Commission. 22. Rule-16 of Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Rules, 2020 reads as follows: “16. Sitting of National Commission and signing of orders. 14 (1) Every proceeding of the National Commission shall be conducted by members of a Bench constituted by the President of the National Commission with one or more members as he may deem fit. (2) Every order made by the National Commission shall be signed by the members who conducted the proceeding and if there is any difference of opinion among the members of the Bench, the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the National Commission.” 23. In terms of the Rules supra, the proceedings conducted by the Single Member, cannot be termed as untenable, as it is in consonance with Rule-16 of Rules’2020 and as per the Roaster/Bench constituted by the President. 24. Though the petitioner had made several allegations against the Member of National Commission, as well as the District Forum, especially at para-14 of the writ petition and point no.(g) of the grounds of petition, which is unbecoming on the part of the petitioner as well as her counsel, however we refrain ourselves from deliberating on the same as are unnecessary and uncalled for. 25. There is one more reason for rejecting this petition is, there is an alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section-41 of Act of 2019. The petitioner having participated in the proceedings before the Forum subsequent to remand and 15 having suffered an order, now cannot be permitted to challenge the order passed by the National Commission, as the order passed by the National Commission has already been implemented and nothing remains to challenge. 26. For the reasons stated supra, we have no hesitation to hold that this petition does not require consideration even for issuance of notice on the other side and has to be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition fails and dismissed accordingly. The petitioner is at liberty to call in question the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, before the appropriate Appellate Authority, if she is so advised. ii) With these observations, the petition sans merits and stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ CT: BRS