The Court affirmed that disputes involving factual complexities and consumer definitions must be addressed through statutory remedies rather than writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

In both these cases, the petitioners are the opposite parties before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. W.P.(C.) No. 23801 of 2025 is filed against the order passed in C.C. No.104/2016 pending before the State Commission, whereas W.P.(c.) No. 24255 of 2025, was submitted against the order passed in C.C. No. 105/2016 of the State Commission.

2. The facts in both the above complaints are similar. The 1st respondent in both the writ petitions, were shareholders of the 1st petitioner company. Later, a decision has been taken by the Board of Directors of the company, as evidenced by Ext.P11, by which, the 1st respondent in both the cases were permitted to transfer the shares, and in consideration for transferring the shares and taking into account the long and invaluable services rendered by them in the company, it was decided that the company would construct and hand over, apartments to the said parties, in their project named “Chevron Celestine Orbit” in Chittazha within 18 months from 01.07.2013. Apart from the above, Rupees three lakhs amount was also to be paid to the 1st respondent in W.P.(c.) No.23801 of 2025. In furtherance of the understanding reached between the parties, Ext.P4 agreements for sale in favour of the complainants, for sale of the apartments were also executed. It is to be noted that, as per the terms and conditions, to the 1st respondent in W.P.(c.) No.23801 of 2025, one apartment was to be handed over, whereas, in the case of the 1st respondent in W.P. (c.)No.24255 of 2025, two apartments were to be sold. However, according to the respondents/complainants the petitioners failed to fulfill the obligations under the agreements and the understandings reached between the parties, and consequently both the said parties submitted the complaints referred to above, which are marked as Ext.P1 in both the writ petitions.

3. A reply versions were submitted by the petitioners in both the complaints which are produced as Ext.P2 in both the writ petitions. In Ext.P2, the status of the complainants as a ‘consumer’ was disputed and it was contented that, there was no consideration for the transactions and therefore, the complainants cannot be treated as consumers under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Apart from the above, various other contentions are raised placing reliance upon the nature of the transaction as reflected from the minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors, the understanding reached between the parties and the terms and conditions in the sale agreement.

4. Even though separate applications were submitted by the petitioners in both the said complaints, challenging the jurisdiction of the State Commission, and to take up the said issue as a preliminary issue, ultimately the State Commission proceeded to determine the matter finally, after permitting the parties to adduce evidence. Accordingly, evidence was adduced and a final order was passed, as evidenced by Ext.P12, in both the cases, rejecting the contentions of the petitioners, and issuing directions to the petitioners to refund the amounts. In W.P.(c.) No.23785 of 2025, the petitioners were directed to refund an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs to the 1st respondent therein with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 30.06.2013, and with a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation along with Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation. Similarly, in W.P.(c.) No.23801 of 2025 as per Ext.P12, the petitioners were directed to refund an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 9%, and to p