JUDGMENT

Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—This is a complaint filed against Samson & Sons Builders and Developers Private Limited Company, its Managing Director, Chairman and two Directors.

2. The allegations contained in the complaint are in brief as follows: The 1st opposite party is carrying out the business of property development and construction and sale of apartments. Opposite parties 2 to 5 are the Managing Director, Chairman and the Directors. The complainant with an intention to purchase a residential flat in Thiruvananthapuram came to know about the apartments in a project run by the opposite parties as “Orchid Valley” at Muttada. Complainant made enquiries with the opposite parties 2 to 5 and they arranged a meeting and convinced the complainant that they are trustworthy builders and assured that they will deliver the apartment to the customers within the time specified in the agreement. On 05.06.2014 the complainant had entered into an agreement for the sale and construction of a 8th option apartment in the second floor having No.B3 along with the undivided share in the property with the opposite parties for a total consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement the complainant had paid Rs.50,00,000/- in three instalments on 06.06.2014, 21.06.2014 and on 26.06.2014 as Rs.20,00,000, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively. As per the stipulation in the agreement the apartment will be handed over in full satisfaction of the complainant on or before 31.12.2015. The complainant was expecting the delivery of the apartment as per the assurance made by the opposite parties in the agreement. But they never started construction of the apartment as assured. The complainant had approached the opposite parties and enquired about the delay in construction and sought for explanation for the non-execution of the sale deed and non-handing over of the apartment. They failed to offer any satisfactory explanation but they assured that they will deliver the apartment within a period of 3 months. But they never started the construction of the apartment and there was no communication from their side. The complainant had approached the 5th opposite party and enquired about the reason for the violation of the conditions in the agreement. He replied that the opposite parties will convene a meeting of the persons who paid for the apartments and give proper explanation and will announce the date of handing over of the apartment. The complainant realized that the opposite parties have deceived the complainant after collecting a huge amount. Even if the complainant had deposited the amount in a nationalized bank he should have received interest @ 9% per annum. The complainant hence suffered much agony on account of the deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties. He would seek for realization of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum for the principal amount paid till the agreed date of delivery and thereafter @ 18% per annum. He would also seek for realization of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and loss suffered. He also claimed Rs.50,000/- as costs.

3. On admitting the complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable. The subject matter of the complaint falls outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act as the same is basically a commercial transaction. It is also contended that the dispute between the builder and the allottee falls under the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016. Chapter V of the said Act deals with matters in relation to the dispute between the builders and allottees.

4. The Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act 2015 imposes a specific bar of jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act over the commercial disputes. By virtue of the Real Estate Regulation Deve