Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 21541
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T. Vinod Kumar, J
Sri Pulgari Praneeth Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.18824 of 2024
A judgment in the context of consumer disputes is typically a judgment in personam, binding only on the parties to the litigation; third parties cannot claim parity in benefits of such a judgment if they have previously entered into a binding consent order in a separate forum.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, and 300-A - Writ of Mandamus - Claim for parity in relief - Petitioners sought benefit of interest at 6% per annum awarded by NCDRC to other flat buyers - Petitioners had earlier obtained a consent order from the High Court agreeing to pay the final flat cost without interest benefits - Court held that the NCDRC order was a judgment in personam, binding only on parties thereto, and not a judgment in rem applicable to all similarly placed persons. (Paras 30-33, 35)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were allotted a flat by the second respondent. Following a dispute over the final cost of the flat, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition (W.P. No.38880 of 2015), wherein they consented to pay the final cost of Rs.47,85,000/- as directed by the Court. Meanwhile, other flat buyers had approached the NCDRC and secured an order for 6% interest on amounts paid. The petitioners failed to pay the agreed amount within the stipulated time and subsequently attempted to seek the same interest benefits through a Review Petition and a rejected representation, eventually filing the present Writ Petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the petitioners, having consented to the terms of the earlier order of the High Court, had waived their right to claim the benefits secured by others in a different forum. The relief granted by the NCDRC was in personam and not in rem.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to parity in benefits with other flat buyers who obtained a favorable order from the NCDRC regarding interest on payments, despite having entered into a prior consent order to pay the full price.
Ratio Decidendi: An order passed in a consumer dispute, which is in personam, cannot be claimed as a matter of right by third parties who were not part of that litigation, especially when the latter parties have previously entered into a binding consent order to pay a specific amount before the High Court. Judicial relief is circumscribed by the remedies explicitly sought and settled between the parties.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of events leading to the filing of the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. parties argument seeking parity with consumer forum beneficiaries. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. respondent argument regarding consent order bindingness. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. court assessment of the binding nature of prior consent orders. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. distinction between judgments in rem and in personam. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. final dismissal order based on misconception of case merit. (Para 36 , 37) |
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
‘… to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in issuance of the impugned Letter vide Lr. No.56/1400SFT/Ph-Xv/Ven-III’EE (WD)/KKP/2024 dated 02.04.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of petitioners’ rights as granted under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to deliver the possession of the Flat No.B3/203 in favour of the petitioners duly ensuring compliance with the terms enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 08.05.2023 in Civil Appeal No.7168 of 2022 and orders dated 06.07.2023 in M.A. No.1469 of 2023 in C.A. No.7168 of 2022 as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of equity and justice.’
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners appearing through hybrid mode, learned Government Pleader for Housing Board appearing for respondent No.1, Sri K. Buchibabu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief, is that he has been allotted a flat in the apartment complex being constructed by the 2nd respondent under an “agreement for construction of flat dated 23.11.2011”; that the consideration for the sale of the aforesaid flat was fixed at Rs.30,80,000/- which is exclusive of parking charges, taxes, water and electricity cost; that the 2nd respondent was to complete construction and deliver the flat agreed to be sold under the agreement within 24 months from the date of commencement of scheme; and that the 2nd respondent did not deliver the constructed flat within the time agreed.
4. Petitioners further contends that while the 2nd respondent did not complete the construction of the flat within the time-line specified in the agreement, the 2nd respondent by issuing letter dated 10.09.2015 had claimed the additional amount contrary to the agreed cost of sale of flat under the agreement.
5. It is the further contention of the petitioners that on the 2nd respondent issuing the aforesaid letter/communication claiming additional amount of Rs.17,05,000/- thereby increasing the final cost of the flat to Rs.47,85,000/-, the petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid enhancement had approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition, vide W.P. No.38880 of 2015.
6. Petitioners further contends that on the 2nd respondent issuing similar letters demanding additional amounts, some of the intending purchasers numbering 135 having approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) at New Delhi by filing complaint vide Consumer Complaint No.493 of 2016; and that the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was partly allowed by the NCDRC whereby the 2nd respondent herein who was arrayed as opposite party No.2 in the aforesaid consumer complaint was directed to pay simple interest to the complainants at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts paid by them from the due date of possession till the date of offer of possession, after the date of obtaining occupancy certificate, the NCDRC while allowing the Consumer Complaint also awarded cost of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants therein.
7. Petitioners furthe
