Appeal No. 39 of 2022 and M.A. No. 124 of 2022
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman & Nicobar Islands delivered its order in Appeal No. 39 of 2022 and M.A. No. 124 of 2022 on 9 February 2024. The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's dismissal of a delayed possession compensation complaint and sent the complaint back for fresh consideration, without deciding whether compensation was payable.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 39 of 2022 arose from a complaint by apartment allottees V.G. Ramakrishnan and Parvathy Ramakrishnan against M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited. The allottees sought compensation for delayed delivery of Apartment No. A-802.
The construction agreement provided for delivery in October 2013. Possession was handed over on 4 May 2019, after a delay of five years and eight months.
The apartment cost was Rs.1,90,06,944. The allottees had paid Rs.1,68,82,137 and still owed Rs.21,24,807, excluding interest, to the promoter.
Why the earlier decision was set aside
The Adjudicating Officer had dismissed the complaint in C.C.P. No. 36 of 2020 through an order dated 3 December 2021. The dismissal relied solely on an email dated 2 January 2020, which was described as showing that the parties had discussed and settled compensation for the delay.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the email had not been marked as a document by either party during the original enquiry. The Adjudicating Officer had given no other reason for dismissing the complaint. The Tribunal therefore decided that both parties should have an opportunity to present their arguments about the email and other relevant material.
Result and next steps
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal:
- Allowed Appeal No. 39 of 2022.
- Set aside the Adjudicating Officer's order dated 3 December 2021 in C.C.P. No. 36 of 2020.
- Sent the complaint back to the Adjudicating Officer for fresh consideration.
- Allowed both parties to produce relevant and admissible documents supporting their cases.
- Directed the Adjudicating Officer to hear both parties and decide the complaint afresh within three months after receiving a copy of the Tribunal's order.
- Closed M.A. No. 124 of 2022.
Who is affected
The decision directly affects the two allottees and M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited. It does not award compensation or determine the final amount payable. The delayed possession complaint must instead be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Officer on its merits.
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
Did the allottees receive compensation for the delay?
No compensation was awarded by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The complaint was returned to the Adjudicating Officer for a fresh decision.
Why was the original dismissal cancelled?
The Adjudicating Officer had dismissed the complaint solely by relying on an email dated 2 January 2020 that had not been marked as a document during the enquiry.
Can the parties submit additional documents?
Yes. Both parties may produce relevant documents before the Adjudicating Officer, subject to admissibility and relevance.
How quickly must the complaint be reconsidered?
The Adjudicating Officer was directed to decide the complaint afresh within three months from receiving a copy of the Tribunal's order.
