IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Gorantla Geosynthetics Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Akshaya Signature Homes Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
C.R.P. (PD) No. 4848 of 2024
Decided On : 16-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction based on specific amenities disputed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability and pecuniary jurisdiction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. discussion on article 227 jurisdiction and consumer protection. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. consumer protection act emphasizes relief-oriented interpretation. (Para 26 , 29 , 34) |
| 5. final verdict regarding the court's decision. (Para 90 , 91) |
ORDER :
1. This civil revision petition arises against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), Chennai, in CC.Sr.No.495 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024.
Facts leading to the revision
2. The petitioners had entered into a sale agreement and a construction agreement on 08.09.2019 with the respondent. The parties had entered into these two agreements for the construction of a premium four bedroom apartment at Nungambakkam in Chennai. In terms of the agreement, apart from the apartment, the petitioners were to be provided with four car parking spaces, a lumber room and other amenities mentioned therein. I am mentioning only the car parking spaces and the lumber room as they are the subject matter in dispute between the parties.
3. The petitioners had paid a sum of Rs.7,61,47,021/- towards the purchase of the said apartment along with the aforementioned amenities. The respondent had given an account statement on 19.02.2019 setting out the break up of the cost of each of the services and it is as follows:-
| Salable Area | 28463833.08 |
| Land Cost | 38260000.00 |
| E B Deposits & Charges | 200000.00 |
| Legal & Documentation Charges | 100000.00 |
| Charges for STP, WTP & Split AC Copper Piping | 382600.00 |
| All Statutory Approval Charges, Fees & Development Charges | 573900.00 |
| Charges towards Club House Equipments, Interiors & Facilities | 191300.00 |
| Preferred Floor rise charges | 1530400.00 |
| Preferred Location charges | 382600.00 |
| Reserved Car Parking Area | 3000000.00 |
| Lumber Room Charges | 2917000.00 |
| 76001633.08 | |
| Infrastructure and Basic Amenities Charges and related expenses | 145388.00 |
| Total value of the Apartment | 76147021.08 |
4. This shows for the reserved car parking, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was charged and for the lumber room, a sum of Rs.29,17,000/- was charged.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent had completed the construction and had handed over possession of the apartment together with four car parking spaces. Out of the four, the two car parks in the lower basement car parking area, allotted to the petitioners, are in front of the lumber room allotted to them. When the petitioners attempted to use the two car parking areas in the lower basement portion, the respondent informed them that even prior to the allotment made in their favour, the same had been allotted to certain third parties. It is conceded by the civil revision petitioners that the third parties, who had taken possession of the two car parking spaces in the lower basement area, blocked the access to the lumber room purchased by them. This is the cause of action for the dispute.
6. An attempt was made to resolve the dispute amicably. While the respondent allotted two car parking areas to the petitioners temporarily, access to the lumber room remains unresolved.
7. This constrained the petitioners to initiate proceedings before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority. They filed C.No.111 of 2022. They sought for restoration of the two car parks and the lumber room to them. In the said proceedings, the respondent entered appearance and stated that a mistake had been committed by it in allotting the two car parkings to the petitioners and that they had already been allotted to a third party. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority by an order dated 20.07.2023 imposed a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- on the respondent. However, it did not order restoration of the two car parks or the lumber room.
8. Aggrieved by this order, the civil revision petitioners preferred an appeal in Appeal No.75 of 2023 before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dism
Woods Birch Hazel Residents Association Vs. Managing Director, Bengal United Credit
Sangeeta Singh Vs. Union of India and others
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association Vs. Union of India
L. Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India and others
Ibrat Faizan Vs. Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd.
State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and Ors.
Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
Anjum Hussain Vs. Intellicity Business Park (P) Ltd.
Vikrant Singh Malik Vs. Supertech Ltd.
Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Vs. Dwarkadhis Projects (P) Ltd.
The jurisdiction of the District Consumer Redressal Commission is determined by the value of goods or services with respect to specific deficiencies claimed, not by the total transaction value.
The classification of pecuniary jurisdiction based on consideration paid under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is constitutional and does not violate Article 14, ensuring effective consumer dispute....
The right to appeal is a vested right which cannot be taken away, absent a statutory enactment to the effect.
Consumer complaints instituted under the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986 continue before the corresponding forums and are not affected by the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The 'value of consideration paid' is the determinant for pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, not the total value of goods or services.
Joint Complaint – Need for application of Order I Rule 8 of CPC would be required only in a case involving a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of 1986 Act – It does not have any application when simil....
Pecuniary jurisdiction – For the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, only the value of the consideration paid for goods or services should be consid....
Right to an appellate remedy becomes vested when the lis is initiated. The remedy which was available prior to the amendment would continue to be available despite the amendment. Therefore, it is for....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.