IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act must follow statutory appeal routes, and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is not applicable.

ORDER :

1. By means of present revision petition, the revision petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in EA No. 5 of 2022 in CC No. 12 of 2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak at Sanga Reddy District (for brevity hereinafter termed as “the District Commission”) and to allow this revision.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned “the District Commission.”

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant Nos. 1 & 2, who are the husband and wife respectively, jointly signed an agreement of sale with the opposite party on 18.12.2014 for purchase of an open plot, bearing plot No. 345 admeasuring 205.77 square yards, at Symphony Park Homes, Patancheruvu Village, GHMC Circle-22 and also to develop and construct a villa comprising of ground plus 1st floor with a salable area of 2203 square feet as per terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement of sale. The complainants took a housing loan from TATA Capital Housing Private Limited to a tune of Rs.41,91,250/-. On 31.12.2014 the opposite party registered the said plot in the name of the complainants after receiving the total amount of Rs.52,31,250/- which amount was paid by the complainants on various dates towards purchase, construction and developmental charges. However, the opposite party failed to handover the completed villa within the time as agreed date i.e. on or before 18.12.2015 as per the terms of agreement, even though there is about five years delay in completing the villa including grace period of six months. In spite of repeated requests from complainants, the opposite party did not respond in any way. The reluctant act of opposite party and his attitude towards the purchasers was doubtful and complainants came to know that opposite party is a fraudster, who swindles away the consumer’s money. In fact, several consumer complaint cases have been filed against the opposite party in the District as well as State Consumer Forum.

4. On 20.01.2021 the complainant served a legal notice informing the opposite party that they are approaching consumer Court for justice, to which also the opposite party did not respond. It is submitted that the opposite party did not develop the common areas as per the approved layout and further the opposite party has to provide common facilities to them as agreed with the Government in getting approval of layout, agreement of sale and sale deed. The complainants further submit that they have been burdened with payment of EMI’s to the Bank, though they did not get possession of their villa from the opposite party. They have been further burdened with rent and another financial difficulties due to non-possession of their villa till date. Hence they filed a consumer complaint before District forum for the reliefs mentioned in the complaint.

5. Despite service of notice, the opposite party did not make his appearance before the District Commission to contest the case.

6. Before the District Commission, the complainants filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. A-1 to A-7 on their behalf.

7. The District Commission after hearing and considering the material evidence on record allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.25,93,188/- as per the estimation provided by Archie Designers under Ex.A-3 as pleaded by complaints in their complaint for completion of construction work for ground plus first floor together with interest at 10% per annum from the date receipt of amount towards construction by opposite party i.e. 31.12.2014 till the date of realization; to pay the damages at Rs.2/- per square feet per month on the total plinth area of 2203 square feet’s from 18.06.2012 till realization as per clause 5.8 of Ex.A-1; with regard to other reliefs claimed by the complainants the opposite party was directed to provide all the amenities as per the agreement and Rs.25,000/- towards