SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2583

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.G. Nirajana
For the Respondent: Mani Sundar Gopal

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.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 2(5), 2(6), 2(10), 2(11), 2(42), 34 - Jurisdiction of District Consumer Redressal Commission (DCDRC) - DCDRC has exclusive original jurisdiction for complaints where the value of goods or services does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. - It was ruled that complaints can be valued based on specific deficiencies, not total value, ensuring consumer accessibility. (Paras 11, 12, 25, 34, 44, 50, 90)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court clarified that the separate grounds of complaint can maintain individual jurisdictional bases. The previous interpretations that required total value are inconsistent with the legislation's intent and spirit of consumer protection. (Paras 66-68, 73-74)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners entered into agreements for purchasing a luxury apartment, including additional amenities worth Rs.7.6 crores. Disputes arose over denied access to two car parking spaces and a lumber room that were mistakenly allotted to third parties, prompting them to seek legal recourse.

Findings of Court:
The DCDRC incorrectly rejected the jurisdiction based on the total sum rather than the specific deficiencies alleged by the petitioners, which amounted to less than the jurisdictional limit.

Issues: Whether consumer complaints could be split based on specific grievances rather than the total value of the service or goods, and whether the DCDRC could entertain such complaints.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized that under the Consumer Protection Act, complaints concerning deficiencies are to be valued based on the nature of deficiencies claimed. It concluded that the DCDRC retains jurisdiction despite the aggregate value of services exceeding government-specified limits.

Result: The impugned order of DCDRC was set aside and restrained from denying hearing the complaints in their separate heads.

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 Area28463833.08
Land Cost38260000.00
E B Deposits & Charges200000.00
Legal & Documentation Charges100000.00
Charges for STP, WTP & Split AC Copper Piping382600.00
All Statutory Approval Charges, Fees & Development Charges573900.00
Charges towards Club House Equipments, Interiors & Facilities191300.00
Preferred Floor rise charges1530400.00
Preferred Location charges382600.00
Reserved Car Parking Area3000000.00
Lumber Room Charges2917000.00
76001633.08
Infrastructure and Basic Amenities Charges and related expenses
145388.00



Total value of the Apartment76147021.08

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top