2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1376
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ANITHA MENDEL – Appellant
Versus
JAIN HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD – Respondent
SC/32/CC/55/2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/55/2019 ANITHA MENDEL PRESENT ADDRESS - THACHAPPALLIL HOUSE,THURUTHEPARAMBU ROAD,VAZHAKKALA,THRIKKAKARA(PO)VADACODE-682021,KERALA.
ASOK ANANTHAKRISHNAN PRESENT ADDRESS - THACHAPPILLI HOUSE,THURUTHEPARAMBU ROAD,VAZHAKKALA,THRIKKAKARA(PO)-682021,KERALA.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus JAIN HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - DOOR.NO-98/99,PASUMBAN DEVAR KALYAN,T NAGAR,HABEEBULLA ROAD,CHENNAI-600017,KERALA.
SANDEEP MEHTHA-MANAGING DIRECTOR-JAIN HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - DOOR NO.98/99,PASUMBAN DEVAR KALYAN,T NAGAR,HABEEBULLA ROAD,CHENNAI-600017,KERALA.
COOLEN PETRIZ-BRANCH IN CHARGE-JAIN HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 39/6605/A-12,ABRAHAM MASTER ROAD,PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-682036,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.55/2019 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.
Anitha Menedal, W/o Ashok Ananthakrishnan, Thachapilli House, Thurutheparambu Road, Vazhakkala, Thrikkakkara P.O., Thrikkakkara North, Vadacode – 682 021 now residing at Apartment No.4078, Jains Tuffnel Gardens, Nilampathinjimukal Road, Kakkanad, Ernakulam
2.
Ashok Ananthakrishnan, S/o T.S. Ananthakrishnan, Thachapilli House, Thurutheparambu Road, Vazhakkala, Thrikkakkara P.O., Thrikkakkara North, Vadacode – 682 021 now residing at Apartment No. 4078, Jains Tuffnel 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.
2. The complainants were working in Ernakulam and hence they decided to settle 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 a luxurious life style apartments in their project near Kochi Info Park. The offer was for an apartment in a housing project consisting of eight towers with 152 flats in each tower with all amenities in each block in 9 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 07.08.2015, an agreement was executed by the complainants and the opposite parties for the sale of flat No.4078 in the seventh floor of the fourth block of “Jains Tufnell Gardens”. The total cost of the flat including the undivided share of land value was fixed as Rs.41,44,570/-(Rupees Forty One Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy only). As per the agreement, the complainants had to pay the entire consideration within one month. After the