Back
2010 Supreme(AP) 755
2011 (1) ALT 702 (D.B.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
GODA RAGHURAM and NOUSHAD ALL, JJ.
Name Constructions Private Limited, Secunderabad and others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi and others – Respondents
W.P.No.28246 of 2009 and Batch-
Decided on : 13-08-2010.
Mr. D. Prakash Reddy Senior Counsel and Mr. V.L.N.G.K. Murthy for Mr. D. Venkat Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioners.
M/s. B.Mayur Reddy, S.C. for Central Government, G.P. for Civil Supplies and Mr. P. Ashok Goud, Asst. Solicitor General, for the Official Respondents.
M/s. Raja Sripathi Rao, G. Rama Gopal, M.P.V. Vali DR Rahman, P. Shiv Kumar, G. Narasimha, C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy, N. Subba Rao, V. Ravi Shankar Reddy, Fareehuddin Soheb, Srinivasa Rao Karra and P. Shiv Kumar, Counsel for the Contesting Respondents.
Headnote:a) CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, Sections 2 (1)(d) and (o), 11,14 and 17 Constitution of India, Article 226 :- Where a developer offers to sell the under a scheme to develop with all the infrastructure and amenities to make them residential houses, it involves an element of services, and the contention that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction since they are matters of specific performance falling under the jurisdiction of civil courts rejected. (Para 22)
b) CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, Sections 2 (1)(o), 3, 11, 14, 17 and 21:_ As stated in Section 3 the relief provided in the Act is in addition to the usual remedy available under the general law. Thus where the lands are offered to be sold under a wider package of developing them as developing the plots with all necessary infrastructure, executing the sale also become a condition and it cannot be so construed to exclude the jurisdiction of consumer forums. CDJ 2009 SC 555 - Distinguished on facts.(Para 27)
Noushad Ali, J.
In this batch of cases, the petitioner company seeks a ruling on the threshold jurisdiction of the consumer fora in entertaining consumer disputes as presented by the respondents (complainants) in each of their consumer cases.
2. This batch of 19 cases falls in two categories - W.P.Nos.28246 of 2009, 302 of 2010, 3947 of 2010, 5091 of 2010, 26520 of 2009, 360 of 2010, 364 of 2010, 405 of 2010, 429 of 2010, 304 of 2010, 305 of 2010, 339 of 2010, 356 of 2010 and 357 of 2010 have been filed at pre-decisional stage seeking writ of prohibition; W.P.Nos.5003 of 2010, 5088 of 2010,5121 of 2010,5131 of 2010 and 5903 of 2010 are post-decisional cases seeking writ of Certiorari. The facts of each writ petition would be referred to later at the relevant stage.
3. In all the writ petitions, the petitioner raised common questions of law on the maintainability of the consumer cases instituted by the respondents (complainants) as falling beyond the jurisdiction of the consumer fora established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity 'the Act'). The writ petitions, therefore, are clubbed and disposed of together by this common order.
4. For the sake of convenience, the sale writ petitioner (common in all the writ petitions) is hereinafter referred to as "opposite party" and the contesting respondents in each of the writ petitions •are hereinafter referred to as the "complainants".
BRIEF FACTS:-
5. The brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petitions are that the opposite party, carrying on the business of real estate to provide housing plots, invited members of public through paper .publication and brochures to purchase plots in its ventures viz., "Central Park-II", "Central Part-III", situated at Kondapur village, "Rolling Meadows Project", Madinaguda village of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and "East City", B.B.Nagar, Nalgonda District. Intending purchasers were to be enlisted as members on payment of fees and allotment of plots would be made .only to such members subject to certain terms and conditions. The complainants became members on payment of the said amounts and specific plots were allotted to them. The allotment of the said plots were subject to certain terms and conditions (which would be adverted to later). The cost of the plots included Development Charges.
Mode of payment was either lump sum with discount on the total cost or by monthly instalments.
The complainants claim that they made payments in full as per the terms and conditions and waited for registration of the plots. On the failure of the opposite party to register, the complainants instituted cases before the respective consumer fora established under the Act seeking . appropriate reliefs which included to direct the registration of the respective plots (in some cases, to release sale deeds/to withdraw cancellation of allotment/to take back the allotted plot and refund the amounts) or to pay the present market value and to pay compensation towards mental agony, loss and damages and also costs.
The opposite party would maintain that the complainants defaulted in the discharge of their obligations and that the cases as presented by each of the complainants do not come within the purview of the provisions of the Act and are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the fora established under the Act. This in brief is the cause for the opposite party for filing these writ petitions.
6. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel and Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel, instructed by Sri Venkat Reddy Donti Reddy, advanced elaborate arguments on behalf of the opposite party. Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri T.Balaji, Sri G.Rama Gopal, Srinivas Karra and Sri P. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the complainants, advanced their arguments on behalf of the Union of India and the complainants.
7. The learned counsel for the opposite party would contend that the dispute presented by the complainants is no
