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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1375

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R K PREMNATH – Appellant
Versus
M/S.JAINS HOUSING&CONSTRUCTIONS LTD – Respondent
SC/32/CC/31/2019



Petitioner Advocates:AYSHAMMA ABRAHAM ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/31/2019 R K PREMNATH PRESENT ADDRESS - B-5K,CHAKOLAS,ORANGE PARK,EDACHIRA KAKKANADU,KERALA.

AVINASH PREMNATH PRESENT ADDRESS - CHAKOLAS,ORANGE PARK,EDACHIRA,KAKKANADU,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus M/S.JAINS HOUSING&CONSTRUCTIONS LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - DOOR.NO-98/99,PASUMBAN DEVAR KALYAN,T NAGAR,HABEEBULLA ROAD,CHENNAI,KERALA.

SANDEEP MEHTHA PRESENT ADDRESS - DOOR NO 98/99,PASUMBAN ROAD,T NAGAR,HABEEBULLA ROAD,CHENNAI,KERALA.

COLLEEN PETRIZ PRESENT ADDRESS - BARNCH IN CHARGE,JAIN HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD,ABRAHAM MASTER ROAD,PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI,KERALA.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: 20/01/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.31/2019 ORDER DATED : 20.01.2026 PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER COMPLAINANTS:

1.

R.K. Premnath, S/o Dr. V.R. Krishnan, B-5K, Chakolas Orange Park, Edachira, Kakkanad, Cochin now residing at Apartment No.4096, Jains Tufnell Gardens, Nilampathinjimukal Road, Kakkanad, Ernakulam

2.

Avinash Premanath, S/o R.K. Premnath, B-5K, Chakolas Orange Park, Edachira, Kakkanad, Cochin now residing at Apartment No.4096, Jains Tufnell Gardens, Nilampathinjimukal Road, Kakkanad, Ernakulam (by Adv. N.G. Mahesh, Amicus Curiae)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. M/s Jain Housing & Constructions Company Limited, Door No.98/99, Pasumban Devar Kalyana, T Nagar, Habeebulla Road, Chennai –

600 017 represented by its Managing Director, Sandeep Mehta

2. Sandeep Mehta, S/o Ashok Mehta, Managing Director, M/s Jain Housing & Constructions Company Limited, Door No.98/99, Pasumban Devar Kalyana, T Nagar, Habeebulla Road, Chennai –

600 017

3. Colleen Petriz, W/o Joseph Antony, Branch In Charge Kerala, M/s Jain Housing & Constructions Company Limited,39/6605/A-12 C, Abraham Master Road, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi, Ernakulam – 682

036 (by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil)

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Jain Housing and Constructions Company Limited and two others.

nd

2. The 2 complainant was working in Info Park, Cochin and his elderly parents

were in need of continuous medical checkup in the hospital at Ernakulam had decided to

settled down at Ernakulam. They had seen an advertisement in the Times of India regarding

the project of the opposite parties by name “Jain Tuffnel Gardens” at Kakkanad. The representative of the first opposite party had contacted the complainants and offered that they will construct a luxurious life style apartments in their project near Kochi Info Park. According to them, the housing project consists of eight blocks with 152 flats with all amenities in each block in 8 acres of property.

3. The first opposite party is a company doing the business of developer cum construction contractor which is represented by the Managing Director, the second opposite party. The third opposite party is the Branch Head of the first opposite party.

4. On 29.03.2018, an agreement was executed by the complainants and the opposite party for the sale of flat No.4096 in the nineth floor of the fourth block of “Jains Tufnell Gardens”. The total cost of the flat was fixed as Rs.49,21,005/-(Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Five only). As per the agreement, the complainants had to pay the entire consideration and within one month after receipt of the entire amount due from the complainants the opposite parties had agreed to hand over the flat . The opposite parties had also assured that they had already obtained approval from competent authorities, completed construction in all respects and the building is ready

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top