An unregistered agreement does not invalidate a consumer complaint; service of notice is deemed valid under the applicable law, and the appropriate legal remedy is an appeal, not a revision.

ORDER :

N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Diary No.20488/NCDRC/2025-RP, dated 19.08.2025.

2.Heard Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Balajivijayan, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Mr.A.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.

Brief facts of the case:-

3.The respondent and the petitioners have entered into an unregistered agreement, dated 27.09.2021 agreeing that the petitioners shall construct a building to the respondent and in turn, the respondent shall pay the expenses incurred towards such construction work. As the petitioners, after receiving the cost and expenses incurred towards construction, did not pave attention towards completion of the construction, the respondent has filed a complaint in Consumer Complaint No.129 of 2023 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thanjavur (hereinafter, referred to as “the District Commission”). In the said complaint, the petitioners were set ex parte.

4.The District Commission, vide order, dated 28.08.2024, had partly allowed the said petition. Assailing the same, the petitioners herein have filed a revision petition before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (Madurai Circuit Bench) (hereinafter, referred to as “the State Commission”), which had dismissed the said revision, as not maintainable. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed a revision in Diary No. 20448/NCDRC/2025-RP before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi hereinafter, referred to as “the National Commission”). The National Commission vide impugned order, dated 19.08.2025, had dismissed the said revision. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5.Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ex parte order was passed, as if the notice of summon was served on the revision petitioners. He pointed out that notice was sent to the address of the petitioners shown in the cause title. However, they did not receive any such notice, as they were residing in a different address and therefore, the notice was never served on them and they were set ex parte. He relied upon Ex-A6, which is an original returned notice cover and the District Commission has not examined with regard to the veracity of the returned cover and has proceeded further to pass an order, which was challenged before the State Commission and the same was dismissed as not maintainable. The National Commission ought to have considered the fact that the respondent/complainant wilfully and wantonly concealed the proper address of the petitioners, thereby, preventing the petitioners from contesting the case.

6.The learned Senior Counsel lamented that when an agreement is entered into between the parties, the same has to be registered in view of Section 17 (1)(b) of the Registration Act and that when the agreement was not duly registered, the same cannot be acted upon. It is his further submission that when there is no time limit prescribed in the agreement, the District Commission has wrongly misunderstood that there is a time limit to conclude the construction within a period of six months. He further relied upon the definition clauses under the Consumers Protection Act, under Section 2 (8) and 2(10), which deals with consumer dispute and defect.

7.The learned Senior Counsel lamented that Section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Act confers with the