- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 7473 OF 2020 (GM-CON) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 14326 OF 2020 (GM-CON) IN WP No. 7473/2020 BETWEEN: MISS. ASHA.P D/O PANCHAKSHARAIAH S, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT ‘UMAKRUPA’, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GIRINAGARA, KYATHSANDRA POST, TUMKUR CITY – 572 104. REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWR OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, S.PANCHAKSHARAIAH S/O SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT ‘UMAKRUPA’, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GIRINAGARA, KYATHSANDRA POST, TUMKUR CITY – 572 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 AND: M/S SIDDALINGESHWARA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. VATSALA W/O YALACHAVADI NAGARAJ, NO.51/49, 20 ‘B’ CROSS, 20TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 040. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IN APPEAL NO.3107/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND BE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE IN COMPLAINT NO.1465/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE -C AND ETC., IN WP NO. 14326/2020 BETWEEN: ANIL P S/O PANCHAKSHARAIAH S, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT ‘UMAKRUPA’, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GIRINAGARA, KYATHSANDRA POST, TUMKUR CITY - 572 104. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWR OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, S.PANCHAKSHARAIAH S/O SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT ‘UMAKRUPA’, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GIRINAGARA, KYATHSANDRA POST, TUMKUR CITY – 572 104. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S SIDDALINGESHWARA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. VATSALA W/O YALACHAVADI NAGARAJ, NO.51/49, 20 ‘B’ CROSS, 20TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 040. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE QUASH THE ORDER DATED.16.10.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IN APPEAL NO.3108/2016 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND BE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE ORDER DATED.5.8.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BANGALORE IN COMPLAINT NO.1466/2014 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. ORDER ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent on the issue of maintainability of this petition before this Court in view of the provision of Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 20191. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the order of the District Forum, respondent had approached the State Commission and the 1 Act, 2019 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 order of the State Commission is sought to be challenged by the petitioner directly before this Court without availing the alternate remedy of filing of an appeal before the National Commission. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory reported in (2012) 8 SCC 524 and another judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co., Vs. Suresh Chand Jain and another reported in 2023 INSC 649, (paragraph No.18). It is his contention that the Act, 2019 applies and therefore under Section 58 of the Act, 2019, the appeal will lie before the National Commission and no writ petition is maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the aforesaid objection and has relied upon the very judgment of M/s.Universal Sompo (supra) but has referred to the provisions of paragraphs No. 32 and 37 of the aforesaid judgment. It is his contention that the appeal before the National Commission would be maintainable - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 only in cases where an original complaint is filed before the State Commission and not in cases where the State Commission is itself considering an appeal arising out of an order passed by the District Forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19862 as well as the provisions of Section 51 of the Act, 2019. 4. An extract of the provision of Section 17 of the Act, 1986 is noted below: "17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Sate Commissions shall have jurisdiction - (a) to entertain- (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed [exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore}; and (ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or 2 Act, 1986 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. . . . ." 5. Section 19 of the Act, 1986 reads as follows: 19. Appeals.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commissioner in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period: Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less. 6. A provision of similar import also exists in the largely pari materia provisions of Section 51 (1) and Section 58 (1)(a) of the Act, 2019, which read as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 "51. Appeal to National Commission- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clauses (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed: . . . " "58. Jurisdiction of National Commission.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction- (a) To entertain- (i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crores: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit. (ii) Complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ten crore rupees; (iii) Appeals against the orders of any State Commissions; (iv) Appeals against the orders of the Central Authority; and." 7. The repeals and savings clause of the Act, 2019 reads as follows: 107. Repeal and savings- (1) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986) is hereby repealed. (2) notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have done or - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act. (3) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeal. 8. So, given the facts of the case, the case before the District Forum was lodged when the Act, 1986 was in force and unless an inconsistency between the Act, 1986 and Act, 2019 is demonstrated, the Act 1986 will continue to apply. As it is evident from the perusal of the provisions quoted above, the provisions of Section 51 of Act, 2019 are pari materia with the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, 1986. 9. Moreover Section 47 of the Act, 2019 too is largely pari materia with the provision of Section 17 of Act 1986. Section 47 of Act, 2019 47. Jurisdiction of State Commission- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction- (a) to entertain- (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration , exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit; (ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees; (iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and 10. As a matter of fact, even in the Act, 2019, when Section 51 is read conjointly with Section 47 thereof, what emerges is that in case of an appeal that is entertained by State Commission against an order passed by the District Forum, no appeal lies before the National Commission. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 11. The judgment in the case of Cicily Kallarackal (supra) is based on its own set of facts and is not applicable. 12. The judgment in the case of M/s. Universal Sompo (supra) as a matter of fact does not support the preliminary objection raised by the respondent, as the matter considered by the Supreme Court was on entirely different set of facts. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is rejected. ORDER ON PETITION 14. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3, in appeal No.3107/2016 to restore the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the III Additional Bengaluru 3 State Commission - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 Urban District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru in complaint No.1465/2014. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, to purchase a site in the layout developed by the respondent, from 13.12.2006 to 13.06.2008, petitioner deposited a total amount of Rs.3,70,700/- in four instalments. When the site was not developed and nor was the same handed over to the petitioner a legal notice dated 25.06.2014 was sent to the petitioner calling upon the respondent to receive the balance amount outstanding and to register the site in her favour. By a reply notice dated 05.07.2014 the respondent stated that the petitioner had lost her eligibility on the ground of default of payment of instalment. Along with the reply notice the respondent also sent a cheque in favour of the petitioner for Rs.3,69,500/- towards the payment of money till then paid by the petitioner. 15. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the respondent before the District Forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 18.08.2014 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 praying for a direction to the respondent to perform its part of the contract by registering the site in the name of the petitioner by receiving balance consideration amount, or, in the alternative, to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of payment of sale consideration paid by the petitioner in instalments and for awarding compensation towards mental agony and stress, and litigation expenses. The respondent opposed the aforesaid complaint. The District Forum by an order of 05.08.2016 allowed the complaint in part, holding that there was deficiency in service by the respondent and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,99,060/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Compensation for mental agony and towards litigation charges were also paid. The respondent challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission but, it is alleged that the respondent did not appear before the State Commission. By the impugned order dated 16.10.2019, the State Commission allowed the appeal of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 the respondent with a direction that the order passed by the District Forum be set aside and the respondent being directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency. 16. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no occasion for the State Commission to reverse the order of the District Forum as regards the rate of interest. It is stated that the order of the District Forum was completely justified and despite the absence of the respondent, the State Commission allowed the appeal while granting only a pittance to the complainant. 17. On perusal of the record of this petition it is reflected that after the amount was sent to the petitioner by cheque on 05.07.2014, the petitioner encashed the cheque issued by the respondent amounting to Rs.3,69,500/- soon thereafter without protest or demur. A month thereafter, the petitioner chose to challenge the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 same before the District Forum. Thereafter, the District Forum awarded Rs.75,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency. The State Commission while fixing the amount, also took into account the returns that the petitioner would have received, had the amount being deposited in a Bank in Fixed Deposit and accordingly, the amount was assessed. 18. Encashment of the cheque amount by the petitioner amounts to an acknowledgement by her. There is no statement made in the petition that any protest was lodged by the petitioner before the encashment of the cheque. It is only after a month of encashing the cheque that the petitioner chose to file a case before the District Forum. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it a fit case for interference. However, in case, the amount of Rs.75,000/- has not been deposited by the respondent till date, it shall be deposited within one month from now. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 19. Subject to the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of. ORDER ON W.P.No.14326/2020 20. A detailed order has been passed today in connected case bearing number W.P.No.7473/2020. 21. The instant petition has been filed by the brother of the petitioner in connected writ petition. 22. The facts of the instant case are identical, but the amount deposited by the petitioner in W.P.No.14326/2020 is Rs.3,74,500/- in instalments with the respondent. By the order of the District Forum, inter- alia, interest at the rate of 18% was assessed on failure of the payment of the amount as mentioned in the operative portion of the order. 23. The State Commission by a common order, has awarded Rs.75,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29818-DB WP No. 7473 of 2020 C/W WP No. 14326 of 2020 24. This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the connected W.P.7473/2020. 25. It is directed that the respondent, if it is not paid the Rs.75,000/- to the complainant, as directed by the State Commission, shall do so within a period of one month from now. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14