(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 14.08.2025 in Review Application No.6 of 2025 in C.C. No.1 of 2024 on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai.)
1. The petitioner is the purchaser of an apartment, having entered into a construction agreement dated 23.01.2020 and also a registered sale deed in respect of undivided share of land with the developer, the third respondent. Complaining that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the developer/third respondent, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission in C.C No. 1 of 2024, seeking the relief of possession and alternatively refund of the amounts advanced by the revision petitioner, together with interest and compensation. The State Consumer Commission disposed of CC No. 1 of 2024 on 20.02.2025, directing refund of Rs.62,30,000/-.
2. Admittedly, Respondents 1 and 2 who are the land owners, have deposited a sum of Rs.62,30,000/-, together with costs of Rs.25,000/- as directed by the State Commission, by way of demand drafts. The petitioner has received the same without prejudice to his rights. The landowners moved Review Application No.6 of 2025 under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking cancellation/Re-conveyance in their favour. By the impugned proceedings, the State Commission has directed the petitioner to execute a re-conveyance deed. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
3. I have heard Mr.M.S.Seshadri, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Sundar Narayan, learned counsel counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The developer, the third respondent has not chosen to appear to contest the revision.
4. Mr.M.S.Seshadri, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would first and foremost contend that State Commission did not have the power to order re-conveyance of the immovable property, exercising powers of review. The learned counsel further bring to my notice that there were parallel proceedings between the parties in W.P No. 32741 of 2023 and W.P No. 1464 of 2024, O.S No.1153 of 2024 as well as W.P No.16752 of 2024 and when issues had to be sorted out between the parties only before the competent Courts, a review could not have been entertained by the State Commission, beyond its power and jurisdiction could not have directed re-conveyance deed to be executed by the revision petitioner, in favour of the land owners/respondents 1 and 2.
5. It is the further contention of Mr.Seshadri, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to further moneys from the respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, in this regard an appeal is also pending before the National Commission and in such circumstances, the State Commission clearly fell in error in directing a re-conveyance deed to be executed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. Further, admittedly possession of the subject apartment is only with the landowners and therefore, there is no impediment or embargo for the respondents 1 and 2 to enjoy the property and the decision regarding execution of a reconveyance deed has to necessarily await finality of the proceeding before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
6. The learned counsel Mr.M.S.Seshadri has relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:-
(i) Basheera Khanum Vs. City Municipal Council and Another, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1748;
(ii) Poonendra Singh Baghel Vs. Manoj K.Parashar, in MP SCDRC, in Appeal No.258 of 2018;
3.Smt.Sunita Chanda and others Vs. Arindan Mondal and others, in WB SCDRC in FA.A/872/2016;
4. KSL and Industries Vs. Arihant Threads Ltd., and others, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 166.
5. Metrozone Apartment Owners Association, represented by its President Vs. Ozone Projects Private Limited, Represented by Deputy Manager, reported in (2025) SCC Online Mad 5378;
6. Malleeswari Vs. K.Suguna and another, reported in 2025 INSC 1080;
7.Ibrat Faizan V. Om Axe Buildhome Pvt Ltd., reported in (2023) 11 SCC 594;
8.Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited V. Suresh Chand Jain and Another, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 148; and
9. Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675.
7. Mr.Sundar Narayan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would attack the maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr.Sundar Narayan would contend that the order passed in the review is amenable to the jurisdiction of the National Commission and taking me through to Section 58 (1) (a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Mr.Sundar Narayan contends that the National Consumer Commission has the power to entertain appeals against all orders of the State Commission and therefore when a specific alternate remedy is available to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner cannot maintain the revision in the first place. Even as regards the merits, Mr.Sundar Narayan contends that having taken back the entire money due and payable to him, the petitioner is holding the respondents 1 and 2 to ransom and the respondents 1 and 2 being only land owners and the entire delay and default having been committed by the third respondent/developer, these respondents have been made scapegoats. He would in any event contend that when the respondents 1 and 2 have repaid the entire monies advanced by the revision petitioner, there can be no objection for the revision petitioner to execute a reconveyance deed which was only a corollary step to restore title with the respondents 1 and 2, to enable them to enjoy with the property, in any manner they may deem fit.
8. In support of his contentions, Mr.Sundar Narayan, relied on the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Suresh Chand Jain and Another, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 148 and Ibrat Faizan Vs. Omaxe Build Home Private Limited, reported in (2023) 11 SCC 594.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and I have also gone through the decisions relied on by learned counsel for both sides.
10. Firstly, the maintainability of the revision petition is to be addressed. According to Mr.Sundar Narayan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the order passed by the State Commission in excise of review powers under Section 50 of the Act is amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the National Commission under section 58 of the Act. It is however contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only orders passed by the State Commission under Section 47(1) (a)(i) & 4(ii) of the Act, which are appealable to the National Commission and the order passed in excise of review powers under Section 50 is not appealable to the National Commission and therefore, according to the petitioner the revision is maintainable.
11. The relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are usefully extracted hereunder:-
Section 34. Jurisdiction of District Commission.
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain. (3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.
Section 40. Review by District Commission in certain cases.
The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.
Section 41. Appeal against order of District Commission
Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed: Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under subsection (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80.
Section 47. Jurisdiction of State Commission.
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;
(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;
(iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof, and a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit: Provided that the senior-most member shall preside over the Bench.
(3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it:
Provided that the President or the other members, as the case may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of one month from the date of such reference.
(4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.
Section 50. Review by State Commission in certain cases.
The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.
Section 51. Appeal to National Commission.
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the National Commission shall not entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days unless it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Save as otherwise expressly provided under this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the National Commission from any order passed in appeal by any State Commission, if the National Commission is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
(3) In an appeal involving a question of law, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4) Where the National Commission is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question and hear the appeal on that question:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the National Commission to hear, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question of law.
(5)An appeal may lie to the National Commission under this section from an order passed ex parte by the State Commission.
Section 58. Jurisdiction of National Commission.
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;
(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ten crore rupees;
(iii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission;
(iv) appeals against the orders of the Central Authority; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof and a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as he may deem fit:
Provided that the senior-most member of the Bench shall preside over the Bench.
(3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it:
Provided that the President or the other member, as the case may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of two months from the date of such reference.
12. Thus it can be seen that insofar as orders passed by the District Commission under Section 41, any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission is entitled to prefer an appeal to the State Commission. Section 40 gives a power of review to the District Commission in certain cases. Section 40 precedes Section 41 and therefore in the event of an order passed under Section 40, exercising power of review by the District Commission, the said order would also be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the State Commission under Section 41. However when it comes to the jurisdiction of the State Commission and appeals therefrom to the National Commission, under Section 47, the orders that are appealable to the National Commission are qualified by restricting the orders only to orders of the State Commission in exercise of powers conferred by Section 47 (1) (i) & (ii). Unlike Section 41, Section 51 does not give an unrestricted scope for referring appeals against all orders passed by the State Commission. In fact, both Sections 40 and 50, conferring review powers on the District Commission and the State Commission respectively are identically worded and placed just before the appeal provisions, namely Sections 41 and 51. Therefore, the intention of the legislature, can be clearly inferred that an order passed under Section 50 by the State Commission. exercising power of review is not appealable to the National Commission. The fall out of this finding takes us to Section 58 which deals with jurisdiction of the National Commission.
13. Mr.Sundar Narayan, learned counsel for the respondents heavily relied on Section 58(1)(a)(iii) and contends that when the National Commission is vested with jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders of any State Commission, it would also include an order passed under Section 50, exercising power of review. However I am unable to countenance the said argument and interpretation sought to be given by Mr. Sundar Narayan. Section 58 is subject to other provisions of this Act and therefore it has to be read in conjunction with Section 51 and not independently. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrat Faizani's case (referred herein supra), held that an order passed under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or 58(1)(a)(iv) could be challenged only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though under limited jurisdiction of superintendence.
14. That was a case arising before the National Commission against order an passed under Section 58 by the National Commission. The applicability of this decision is questioned by Mr.Sundar Narayan, learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a further appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court alone and therefore, the facts were entirely different and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be pressed into service in the present facts and circumstances.
15. With regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when no further appeal is provided against the order passed by the National Commission, then the remedy available is to knock at the doors of the High Court concerned can be certainly applied to the facts of the present case. I have already found that the order passed in the review is not amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the National Commission. In such circumstances, the aggrieved party is certainly entitled to approach the High Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
16. In Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited 's case (referred herein supra), a challenge was made to an order passed by the National Commission under Section 21 of the 1986 Consumer Protection Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order passed by the National Commission in exercise of appellate jurisdiction cannot be challenged directly before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.
17. In Suryadev Rai's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled position of law that the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not only administrative but also judicial and can be invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved and that in such cases, the paramount consideration behind such wide powers of superintendence being vested in the High Court being only to pave the path of justice and remove obstacles in the way, such power is not subject to technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters. In the light of the above, I do not see any difficulty arising in holding that the revision petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable before this Court.
18. Coming to the merits of the order passed in the review application, it is the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has already filed a suit in O. S. No. 1153 of 2024 before the competent Civil Court seeking relief of cancellation of the documents. In such view of the matter when the respondent himself has filed the suit and the suit is admittedly pending, it is to be seen if the respondents were entitled to approach the State Commission and seek the relief of re-conveyance, which is the very same relief that is sought for before the Civil Court. Though the learned counsel for respondent has strenuously contended that the order passed in the review application does not warrant interference as the State Commission has taken into consideration equity, the exercise of review in the first place appears to be under cloud. The original order of the State Commission was only directing refund in fact, in the complaint, the petitioner himself did not seek the relief of cancellation of the registered conveyance deeds. By order dated 20.02.2025 the consumer complaint was allowed in part, granting only the alternate relief of refund of the money advanced by the petitioner to be paid by respondents 1 and 2. Therefore I see merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no error apparent on the face of the record for the State Commission to have even entertained the review petition in the first place.
19. In fact, it has been brought to the notice of the State Commission that for the very same relief, the parties are litigating before the competent Civil Court. Further the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in CC. 1 of 2024 is also under challenge before the National Commission as well. In such circumstances I am unable to sustain the exercise of review power by the State Commission, directing a re-conveyance deed to be executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. The Consumer Protection Act has been promulgated for protection of the interest of consumers and for settlement of consumer disputes. There is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act 2019, in and whereby positive directions can be issued to the complainant himself. In and by the order passed in the review application, the State Commission has virtually granted relief to the opposite parties by directing the complainant who approached the Commission, to execute a registered conveyance deed.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basheera Khanum's case (referred herein supra), held that remedies which are available under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted by the State Commission and only the competent Civil Courts can grant relief. Even under Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of the Act are only in addition and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In such view of the matter, the power of the Civil Court to order re-conveyance or cancellation of registered documents pertaining to immovable property continues to vest only with the competent Civil Courts and cannot be said to have been taken away and vested with the commissions appointed under the Consumer Protection Act. Commissions appointed only under what terminology formed are appointed under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malleeswari's case (referred herein supra), held that the power of review is very limited and the Review Court cannot take up an error on re-appreciation of the case and counter case of the parties, excepting for correcting any errors apparent on the face of the records. In KSL Industries, (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an order passed by the regulatory authority under the provisions of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in examining a similar provision, viz., Section 100 of the held that when the provisions are only in addition and not in derogation of other laws for the time being in force, then the decision of the Civil Court which is pending in revision would have to be awaited.
21. Further, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Seshadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any pleading with regard to the relief sought for in the review application, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot seek a new relief which is not even backed by pleadings in the complaint originally filed before the State Commission' that too, in review jurisdiction of the State Commission. It is also settled law that when there are disputed questions of fact, such controversy cannot be entered upon and cannot be adjudicated by the State Commission which is deciding the complaint on a summary inquiry alone. It is only the competent Civil Court which can determine the disputes and rightly, the respondents themselves have approached the Civil Court and filed a suit for cancellation of the documents. In such view of the matter the State Commission clearly fell in error in entertaining the review application and passing an order, exceeding the powers available under Section 50 of Act.
22. I do not find the ratio laid down in Olympus Superstructures Pvt Limited Vs. Meena Vijay Khetan and others, reported in (1999) 5 SCC 651 being available to the petitioner to take advantage of in the present situation. It was a case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal was competent to direct specific performance of an agreement of sale and that such relief could be granted only by the Civil Court. Though reliance is also placed on Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited's case, (referred herein supra), to contend that when alternate remedies are open to an appellant, they have to be first exhausted and ultimately, it was held that the proper course for the appellant was to exhaust all remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Article 136.
23. In view of my findings earlier that there is no other alternate or effective remedy available under the provisions of the CPA Act 2019, the petitioner cannot be found fault with for approaching the Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even in Olympus Superstructures Pvt Limited's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only dealing with the jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal to grant relief of specific performance and the ratio laid down therein cannot be imported to vest the State Commission with the power of review to pass an order, usurping the powers of the Civil Court, especially when a Civil Suit in that regard is admittedly pending for the very same relief.
24. Even the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Mandira Mookerjee Vs. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and others, reported in (2004) SCC Online Cal 654, as well, the issue before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was whether a contract can be specifically enforced before an Arbitrator and while answering the said question, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court incidentally went into the Consumer Protection Act, (Act 19 of 1986) and held that the definition of service in Section 2 of the Act was of very wide amplitude and it would include service of any description made available to potential users and not limited to matters including house construction. This decision was on a different factual matrix altogether and therefore, I do not see how this decision would apply to the facts of the present case.
25. After orders reserved, it was brought to the notice, the National Commission has allowed the appeal and has directed the respondent/land owner to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of each deposit till the date of actual payment. In view of the said order passed by the National Commission, it becomes more imperative to delegate the competent Court with regard to relief of cancellation.
26. In view of the foregoing discussions, the revision under Article 227 is held to be maintainable and consequently, the order passed by the State Commission exercising power of review is held to be in excess of its jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Act. Consequently, the order dated 14.08.2025 is set aside. It is made clear that the dismissal of this review application shall not prejudice the rights of the respondents 1 and 2 in pending civil suit in O. S. No. 1153/2024.
27. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |