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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1451

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JOLLY EDWARD – Appellant
Versus
SPACE BUILDERS – Respondent
SC/32/CC/211/2017



Petitioner Advocates:S REGHUKUMAR ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/211/2017 JOLLY EDWARD PRESENT ADDRESS - BABY DEVAON, NELLIMOOD, MURUKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695302,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus SPACE BUILDERS PRESENT ADDRESS - SOBHA PARVATHI AJITHCONSULTANTS, ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD(SPACE BUILDERS), TC 11/1535/-1, KAUSTHUBHAM, CLIFF HOUSE ROAD, KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,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: 27/01/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.211/2017 ORDER DATED : 27.01.2026 PRESENT:

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

Jolly Edward, W/o Edward Benchamin Gomez, Baby Devaon, Nellimood, Murukumpuzha, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 302 (by Adv. S. Reghukumar & Adv. P. Babu)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. Shoba Parvathi Ajith Consultants, Engineers & Builders Private Ltd.

(SPACE Builders) having its registered office at TC 11/1535-1, Kausthubham, Cliff House Road, Kowdiar P.O., Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director, Sobha Ajith

2. Shobha Ajith, Managing Director, Shoba Parvathi Ajith Consultants, Engineers & Builders Private Ltd. (SPACE Builders) having its registered office at TC 11/1535-1, Kausthubham, Cliff House Road, Kowdiar P.O., Thiruvananthapuram

3. S.R. Ajithkumar, Director, Shoba Parvathi Ajith Consultants, Engineers & Builders Private Ltd. (SPACE Builders) having its registered office at TC 11/1535-1, Kausthubham, Cliff House Road, Kowdiar P.O., Thiruvananthapuram (by Adv. Meena C.R.)

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Shoba Parvathi Ajith Consultants, Engineers & Builders Private Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, the Managing Director and the Director of the first opposite party.

2. The allegation contained in the amended complaint is that on 22.10.2012 the complainant and the opposite parties had entered into an agreement with regard to the purchase of an apartment proposed to be constructed by the opposite parties in the property comprised in Survey No.320/9-1 under the settlement deed No.2210/1995 of Vattappara Village with a super built area of 1180 sq.ft. on the seventh floor of “Space Ruby Mansions”. The total consideration inclusive of registration charges and common charges was fixed as Rs.32,77,000/-(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand only). On the date of agreement an amount of Rs.5,32,350/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only) was paid by the complainant. Schedule C was incorporated in the agreement by which payment has to be effected at different stages. It was also stipulated that the apartment designated as No.C8 on the seventh floor would be completed and handed over the same to the complainant before 30.11.2014. A further stipulation was also incorporated that in the event of any delay in effecting delivery, the opposite party should pay interest @12% per annum with regard to the period of delay. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.26,61,750/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) as on 13.02.2016. Despite receiving substantial amount from the complainant, even the structure of the apartment was not completed. The opposite parties had insisted for payment, though the stages mentioned in schedule C of the agreement were not completed. The project is lagging behind schedule by 3 years and the delay is solely due to the negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The complainant after returning to India visited the premises and was shocked to see that the structure was not completed. In June 202

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