Appeal Nos. 3 & 4 of 2019, Common Order
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued the common order in Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 2019 on 25 April 2019. It examines whether two homebuyer complaints could proceed before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority while complaints seeking the same relief remained pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu. The supplied text supports the earlier finding that simultaneous proceedings were not maintainable, but does not include the final operative paragraph disposing of the appeals.
What the case concerns
The common order in Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 2019 was issued by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal on 25 April 2019. The appellants, A.R. Ravisankar and Y. Ravishankar, had filed complaints against Marg Properties Limited or its Managing Director before the Adjudicating Officer of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
The Adjudicating Officer dismissed the complaints on 5 February 2019 because consumer complaints seeking the same relief were still pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu. The appellants asked the Tribunal to set aside that decision and return the matters for fresh consideration.
Key findings
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal examined the timing and content of the proceedings and recorded that:
- The appellants knew their consumer complaints were pending when they approached the Adjudicating Officer.
- Their regulatory complaints stated that applications seeking permission to withdraw the consumer complaints had already been filed.
- The withdrawal memos were actually filed only after the Adjudicating Officer dismissed the regulatory complaints. In one matter, the memo was filed after the appeal had also been presented.
- No withdrawal order was produced before the Adjudicating Officer before the complaints were dismissed.
- The Tribunal agreed with the Adjudicating Officer's view that pursuing the same relief before both forums at the same time was not legally sustainable.
- The Tribunal criticised the failure to disclose the regulatory dismissal when withdrawal was later requested before the Consumer Commission.
Who may be affected
The common order is directly about the two appellants and Marg Properties Limited. It is also relevant to buyers or allottees who already have a compensation claim pending before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and want to pursue the same matter before an Adjudicating Officer under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016.
The Tribunal treated actual withdrawal of the consumer proceeding, rather than a stated intention to withdraw it later, as important under the proviso to Section 71(1). The supplied text ends during its discussion of that provision and does not reproduce the final operative decision formally allowing or dismissing the appeals.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Can I pursue the same refund claim before the Consumer Commission and the Real Estate Regulatory Authority at the same time?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Adjudicating Officer that keeping proceedings for the same relief pending before both forums was not legally sustainable.
Is promising to withdraw my consumer complaint enough?
Not in the circumstances considered here. The Tribunal noted that the consumer complaints had not actually been withdrawn before the Adjudicating Officer dismissed the regulatory complaints.
Why did the Adjudicating Officer dismiss these complaints?
The complaints were dismissed on 5 February 2019 because consumer proceedings seeking identical relief were still pending, despite statements that withdrawal applications had been filed.
Did the Tribunal finally dismiss Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 2019?
The supplied text does not include the final operative paragraph. It records strong criticism of the appellants' conduct and agreement with the Adjudicating Officer's reasoning, but does not reproduce the formal result of the appeals.
