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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
Astronio Properties Private Limited, represented through its Director, P.Sasikumar – Appellant
Versus
A.Vignesh Moorthy – Respondent
C.R.P.[PD](MD)No.1802 of 2025 | C.M.P.(MD)No.9881 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Mr.R.J.Karthick
For the Respondents:

The court upheld the Consumer Forum's authority to impose payment conditions for non-compliance and affirmed the necessity of timely appeal processes in consumer disputes.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 35 - Conditional order - Imposition of payment obligation on the petitioners to refund amounts ordered by the Consumer Forum within a specified timeframe, justified due to non-compliance with initial order - Warrant was issued for non-compliance - No appeal was filed within time against the original order of the Consumer Forum - Court finds no infirmity in the Commission’s decision. (Paras 3, 8, 9)

(B) Jurisdiction - The petitioners contend that the Consumer Forum acted beyond its jurisdiction in issuing a warrant despite prior attachment proceedings initiated under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act - The court holds that jurisdictional issues do not negate the obligation to comply with lawful orders. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent for purchasing a housing plot but failed to complete registration as promised, leading to a consumer complaint and a well-reasoned order for refund and compensation from the Consumer Forum.

Findings of Court:
The petitioners did not challenge the original order in a timely manner, leading to the Consumer Forum’s justified actions in compelling compliance through conditional orders.

Issues: Whether the Consumer Forum acted within its jurisdiction and imposed conditions justly in light of non-compliance by the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was justified in imposing conditions for payment to ensure compliance with its orders due to the petitioners’ inaction and the absence of a stay or interim relief by a higher authority.

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners failed to register plot despite payment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. jurisdiction and compliance issues discussed. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court upholds consumer forum's authority. (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking orders to set aside the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Theni in C.M.P.No.22 of 2025 in E.A.No.48 of 2024, insofar as it imposes a condition on the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.5,71,425/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Five only) to the decree holder / respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.38 of 2024 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Theni. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the petitioners and two others seeking directions to refund a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with penal interest from the date of remittance till realization; pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trade practice and deficiency in service; pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family; and pay litigation costs of Rs.20,000/- along with such other reliefs as the Forum may deem fit.

3. The case of the respondent is that, having seen the advertisements issued by the petitioners, the respondent booked a TNRERA and DTCP- approved housing plot by remitting a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- in cash, as demanded by the petitioners. Upon payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, he was issued a Customer ID and receipt. The petitioners assured him that the plot would be registered and possession handed over within six months from payment of the remaining Rs.3,00,000/-, and that the registration would be completed on or before 19.02.2024. However, despite repeated requests, the registration of the plot was not completed. Consequently, the respondent filed a consumer complaint on 29.04.2024. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Theni, by an order dated 15.07.2024, directed the petitioners to refund a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order; Pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) for unfair trade practice; Pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony; and Pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as costs. The Forum further directed that if the amounts were not paid within the stipulated time, the petitioners would be liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint until realization.

4. For non-compliance with the above said order, the respondent filed an application in E.A.No.48 of 2024 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Theni, and the Forum issued a warrant on 04.04.2025 to the petitioners. To recall the warrant, the petitioners filed C.M.P.No.22 of 2025. The said petition was allowed on 13.05.2025 with a direction to the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.5,71,425/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Five only) to the respondent / decree-holder within 20 days i.e., from 03.06.2025, failing which the warrant issued in E.A.No.48 of 2024 would remain. In the mean time, the petitioners filed an appeal in R.P.SR.No.1583 of 2024 under Section 47 1(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the Circuit Bench of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai, seeking to set aside the order dated 15.07.2024 made in C.C.No.38 of 2024 and to dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent and the same has not yet been numbered. Aggrieved by the conditional direction to deposit the amount, the present Civil Revision Petition has b

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