High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions allowed; the commission’s order ...
Prestige Estates Projects Limited (formerly Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd.) v. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Others
Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).Nos.21640/2018; 22487/2018; 22503/2018; 22742/2018; 22820/2018; 22822/2018
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
- Judgment Date
- 2019-02-05
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Court set aside the portion of the Commission’s order directing a joint hearing and the recording of evidence across all connected cases. It held that the commission should decide each complaint on its own merits, with due notice and opportunity, and that consolidation may be permissible only with proper pleadings or explicit requests. The writ petitions were allowed, and the Commission was directed to proceed with the complaints as per the facts of each case.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions allowed; the commission’s order directing joint hearing is set aside; complaints to be considered by the Commission on their merits.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Prestige Estates Projects Limited
Respondents
- Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SisuviHar Lane, Vazhuthacaud, Sasthamangalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695010
- JoJy Isaac
- Alexander Kurian
- Mary Kurian
- Irfan Razack
- Rezwan Razack
- Saju Chacko
- Susha Saju
- Seena JoJy
- Ann George Edathuruthukaran
- Prestige Estate Projects Ltd.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • V. Abraham Markos
- • Abraham Joseph Markos
- • Haran Thomas George
- • Isaac Thomas
- • Rachel Abraham
- • P. G. Chandapillai Abraham
Case Synopsis & Summary
Prestige Estates Projects Limited, a private company, challenged orders of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing joint trial and recording of evidence through an Advocate Commissioner across connected consumer complaints. The Petitioner argued that no single prayer for consolidation existed in the intake petitions and that a case-by-case determination of deficiency of service was required, with each complaint requiring its own evidence and pleadings. The Respondents contended that Regulation 24 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 permits flexibility and allows the Commission to direct consolidation where common questions of law or fact arise, citing authorities including Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria and Navabharat Vignan Trust. The Court held that while consolidation and joint trial are permissible in principle, such an order must be justified with proper notice and a clear prayer; here the Commission’s directive for joint hearings without notice or a specific prayer was not justified. The Court, balancing statutory regulators with natural justice, set aside the joint-hearing portion of the Commission’s order and directed the Commission to proceed with the complaints on their own merits. The writ petitions were therefore allowed, clarifying that case-specific evidence and pleadings must be examined independently.
Provisions of Law Cited
Kerala Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 Regulation 24Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)Evidence Act (as applicable)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Principle of natural justice
- Consolidation of cases / joint trial doctrine
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the commission’s order directing joint hearings across connected CCs and appointing an Advocate Commissioner to record evidence in all cases was unwarranted since no such prayer was made in the original complaints. They stressed that deficiency of service must be proved separately in each case, and that all parties must be given proper notice before such consolidation. They contended that the Kerala Regulations permit some flexibility but do not obliterate the need for case-specific adjudication, and that relying on the power of attorney of complainants cannot substitute for a proper application for consolidation.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents asserted Regulation 24 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 permits procedural flexibility and allows consolidation and joint trial where common questions of law or fact arise, citing authorities including Prem Lala Nahata and Navabharat Vignan Trust. They argued that consolidation can be warranted for efficiency and that the Commission’s order, even if not expressly prayed for in every connected case, is within its powers, particularly when the complainants’ rights arise from the same transaction. They relied on precedents indicating that common questions may justify joint proceedings and that the Regulated forum can tailor procedure to the circumstances.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prem Lala Nahata and Another v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria | 2007 KHC 3076 | Positive | Cited to support the principle that consolidation of cases is permissible when there is a common question of law or fact, or a common transaction. |
| Navabharat Vignan Trust and Others v. Nasihudeen and Others | 2013 (1) KHC 1 | Positive | Cited to justify joint trial where common questions arise and relief stems from the same act or transaction. |
| Unknown case (1999 KHC 683) | 1999 KHC 683 | Positive | Cited to illustrate that joint consideration is permissible where the forum deems it necessary in the facts. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Prestige Estates Projects Limited (formerly Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd.) v. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 21640 of 2018**
## **PETITIONER:**
**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT. LTD.), FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MR.THANKACHAN THOMAS V.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**1**|**THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES**|
|---|---|
||**REDRESSAL COMMISSION,**|
||**SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD,**|
||**SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.**|
|**2**|**JOJY ISAAC,**|
||**S/O.MR.K.J.ISAAC, 9D, LINK HERITAGE,**|
||**MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,**|
||**KOCHI-682 036.**|
|**3**|**MR.IRFAN RAZACK,**|
||**CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,**|
||**FALCON HOUSE NO.1,**|
||**MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,**|
||**BANGALORE-560 001.**|
|**4**|**MR. REZWAN RAZACK,**|
||**JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR,**|
||**FALCON HOUSE NO.1,MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,**|
||**BANGALORE-560 001.**|
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
2
**5 PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD., (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),NO.32, BAY PRIDE MALL, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-682 031, NOW AT NO.96, 10TH FLOOR, ABAD NUCLEUS MALL, KOCHI- MADURAI NH-49, MARADU, KOCHI-682 304.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.B.BILWIN SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN SRI.S.SUDHEESH**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**GP PRINCY XAVIER AND GP K.M.RESMI**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22487/2018, WP(C).22503/2018, WP(C).22742/2018, WP(C).22820/2018, WP(C).22822/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
3
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940**
**WP(C).No. 22487 of 2018**
## **PETITIONER:**
**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT.LTD., FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MR.THANKACHAN THOMAS V.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SMT.RACHEL ABRAHAM SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**1**|**THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES**|
|---|---|
||**REDRESSAL COMMISSION,**|
||**SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD,**|
||**SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.**|
|**2**|**MRS.ANN GEORGE EDATHURUTHUKARARAN,**|
||**W/O.MR.E.P.GEORGE, 36/1685,**|
||**JUDGES' AVENUE, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.**|
|**3**|**MR.IRFAN RAZACK,**|
||**CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,**|
||**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,**|
||**FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,**|
||**BANGALORE-560 001.**|
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
4
**4 MR.REZWAN RAZACK, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 5 PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD., (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT.LTD.) NO.32, BAY PRIDE MALL, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-682 031 NOW AT NO.96, 10TH FLOOR, ABAD NUCLEUS MALL, KOCHI-MADURAI NH-49, MARADU, KOCHI-682 304. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.B.BILWIN SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN SRI.S.SUDHEESH**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22742/2018, WP(C).22503/2018, WP(C).22822/2018, WP(C).22820/2018, WP(C).21640/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
5
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940**
**WP(C).No. 22503 of 2018**
## **PETITIONER:**
**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT.LTD.), FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MR. THANKACHAN THOMAS V.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SMT.RACHEL ABRAHAM SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.CHANDRAPILLAI ABRAHAM P.G SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
**1 THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 2 Mr. ALEXANDER KURIAN, S/O. MR. V.K. KURIAN, 5A, LINK HEIGHTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI – 682036. 3 Mrs. MARY KURAIAN, W/O. Mr. ALEXANDER KURAIN,**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
6
||**5A, LINK HEIGHTS,**|
|---|---|
||**PANAMPILLY NAGAR,**|
||**KOCHI – 682036**|
|**4**|**MR. IRFAN RAZACK,**|
||**CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,**|
||**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,**|
||**FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,**|
||**BANGALORE-560 001.**|
|**5**|**MR. REZWAN RAZACK,**|
||**JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR,**|
||**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED,**|
||**FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,**|
||**BANGALORE-560 001.**|
|**6**|**PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,**|
||**(FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),**|
||**NO.32, BAY PRIDE MALL, SHANMUGHAM ROAD,MARINE DRIVE,**|
||**KOCHI-682 031, NOW AT NO.96,**|
||**10TH FLOOR, ABAD NUCLEUS MALL,**|
||**KOCHI-MADURAI NH-49, MARADU,**|
||**KOCHI-682 304.**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**SRI.ANIL S.RAJ**|
||**SMT.ANILA PETER**|
||**SMT.K.N.RAJANI**|
||**SRI.B.BILWIN**|
||**SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.**|
||**SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN**|
||**SRI.S.SUDHEESH**|
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22742/2018, WP(C).22822/2018, WP(C).22820/2018, WP(C).22487/2018, WP(C).21640/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
7
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940**
**WP(C).No. 22742 of 2018**
## **PETITIONER:**
**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT.LTD.) FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MR. THANKACHAN THOMAS V. BY ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SMT.RACHEL ABRAHAM SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
**1 THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010. 2 MR. SAJU CHACKO, S/O. MR. C.F. CHACKO, 7, 3RD STREET, SUBBARAO AVENUE, COLLEGE ROAD, NUGAMBAKKOM, CHENNAI - 600 006. 3 MRS. SUSHA SAJU, W/O. MR.SAJU CHACKO, 7, 3RD STREET, SUBBARAO AVENUE,**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
8
**COLLEGE ROAD, NUGAMBAKKOM, CHENNAI - 600 006. 4 MR. IRFAN RAZACK, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LTD., FALCON HOUSE NO. 1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 5 MR. REZWAN RAZACK, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, FALCON HOUSE NO. 1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 6 PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD., (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT. LTD.) NO. 32, BAY PRIDE MALL, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI - 682 031 NOW AT NO. 96, 10TH FLOOR, ABAD NUCLEUS MALL, KOCHI - MADURAI NH-49, MARADU, KOCHI - 682 304. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22503/2018, WP(C).22822/2018, WP(C).22820/2018, WP(C).22487/2018, WP(C).21640/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
9
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
**TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940**
**WP(C).No. 22820 of 2018**
## **PETITIONER:**
**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT.LTD.) FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MR. THANKACHAN THOMAS V.**
|||**BY ADVS.**|
|---|---|---|
|||**SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS**|
|||**SMT.RACHEL ABRAHAM**|
|||**SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS**|
|||**SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE**|
|||**SRI.ISAAC THOMAS**|
|||**SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM**|
|**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|||
|**1**||**THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES**|
|||**REDRESSAL COMMISSION,**|
|||**SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD,**|
|||**SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.,**|
|||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.**|
|**2**||**MRS. SEENA JOJY,**|
|||**W/O. MR. JOJY ISSAC,**|
|||**9D, LINK HEIGHTS, MAIN AVENUE,**|
|||**PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036.**|
|**3**||**MR. IRFAN RAZACK,**|
|||**CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,**|
|||**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LTD.,**|
|||**FALCON HOUSE NO. 1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE**|
|||**- 560 001.**|
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
10
**4 MR. REZWAN RAZACK, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LTD., FALCON HOUSE NO. 1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 5 PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD., (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT. LTD.) NO. 32, BAY PRIDE MALL, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI - 682 031 NOW AT NO. 96, 10TH FLOOR, ABAD NUCLEUS MALL, KOCHI - MADURAI NH-49, MARADU, KOCHI - 682 304. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN SRI.S.SUDHEESH**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22742/2018, WP(C).22503/2018, WP(C).22822/2018, WP(C).22487/2018, WP(C).21640/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
11
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940**
**WP(C).No. 22822 of 2018**
## **PETITIONER:**
**PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT.LTD.) FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MR. THANKACHAN THOMAS V. BY ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SMT.RACHEL ABRAHAM SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
**1 THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010. 2 MR. ISSAC JOJY, S/O. MR. JOJY ISSAC, 9D, LINK HEIGHTS, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036. 3 MR. IRFAN RAZACK, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LTD., FALCON HOUSE NO. 1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
12
**- 560 001. 4 MR. REZWAN RAZACK, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LTD., FALCON HOUSE NO. 1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 5 PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD., (FORMERLY PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS PVT. LTD.), NO. 32, BAY PRIDE MALL, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI - 682 031 NOW AT NO. 96, 10TH FLOOR, ABAD NUCLEUS MALL, KOCHI - MADURAI NH-49, MARADU, KOCHI - 682 304.**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22742/2018, WP(C).22503/2018, WP(C).22820/2018, WP(C).22487/2018, WP(C).21640/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
13
## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.**
## **================================**
**W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018 ===================================================** Dated this the 05[th] day of February, 2019
## **JUDGMENT**
These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordering the joint trial as well as allowing a commission application for the recording of evidence in all the cases.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, which is a Private Limited Company, was the opposite party in the Consumer Cases Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2014 and CC No.53 of 2015 before the 1[st] respondent. Pleadings had been placed on record in the complaints by the petitioner as well. It is stated that in CC No. 8/14, a Commission Application had been preferred by the petitioner. In W.P.(C) No.21640/18, a commission application preferred in C.C. No 8/14 is produced as Ext.P4. Ext.P4 seeks the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for recording evidence in the numbered C.C as well as in connected cases. The prayers sought for was to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for recording evidence in the above case and the connected
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018 14
cases namely CC Nos.7/14, 9/14, 10/14, 11/14 and 53/15.
3. At the time of the filing of the writ petition, copy of the order passed by the Commission was not available and same had not been placed on record. Along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent in W.P.(C) No.21640/18, the order passed in the commission application is also produced. Ext.R2(a) is the order. The order states that an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to record evidence of complainants and their witnesses, if any. The commission report is to be filed within six weeks. Joint hearing of all the complaints which are of similar nature is also ordered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the passing of an order for recording of evidence in all the cases without applications being filed in the individual cases is itself unwarranted. It is further contended that the joint hearing of the cases as ordered by the commission would result in prejudice to the petitioner in- as- much as the specific pleadings as to the deficiency of service has to be taken note of in each case individually and a joint hearing is not warranted in the facts of the case.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent would contend that the Rules of evidence and the procedure as laid down in the
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018 15
Civil Procedure Code (in short CPC) are not to be adhered to in full in view of the specific provisions contained in the Kerala Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. It is stated that Regulation 24 specifically provides that any proceedings before the forum, endeavor shall be made by the parties to avoid the use of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that the question whether a joint trial or a consolidation of cases is to be ordered is an issue for the Commission itself to decide and challenge the order passed by the Commission on technical grounds is not liable to be entertained. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in _**Prem Lala Nahata and Another v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria [2007 KHC 3076]**_ . The Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction to consolidate cases arises when it appears to the court that common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claim in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidation of the suits.
6. It is contended that in the instant case, the commission itself has considered the issue and has found that such consolidation is required. It is stated that even though the application fled by the 2[nd] respondent did
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018 16
not seek a consolidation or a joint trial, the Commission would be well within its powers in ordering the same. A decision of a Division Bench of this Court in _**Navabharat Vignan Trust and Others v. Nasihudeen and Others [2013 (1) KHC 1]**_ , is also relied on to contend that where a common question of law or common question of fact arises in all matters and were the right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction or the same series of act or transaction the joint trial of the matters is permissible.
7. The learned counsel also places reliance on a decision reported in [ _**1999 KHC 683]**_ to contend that a joint trial or a joint consideration of matters is perfectly in order where the Forum itself feels that such a course of action is required in the facts of the cases.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contend that there was only one application preferred and there was no prayer in the application for joint trial. It is further contended that the deficiency of service in each case, is a question of fact which requires to be proved separately and the joint hearing ordered by the commission is completely without justification. It is further stated that no reasons had been stated in the order for ordering a joint trial. It is stated that the petitioner was also not put on notice of such a course of action since no applications had been made in any of the connected cases.
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018 17
9. I have considered the contentions advanced. The issue to be considered by the Commission is evidently one with regard to any deficiency of service. It is apparent that the petitioner in C.C.No.8/14 had preferred the application in the said consumer case alone. However, the only prayer was to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record evidence in all the connected cases. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not essentially aggrieved the passing of the order in all cases even though the application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to record evidence was available only in one case. However it is submitted that the issue of deficiency of service has to be separately proved by the complainants in each of the cases. It is stated that the fact that the 2[nd] respondent holds the power of attorney for the complainants in other cases also cannot be a ground for consolidating the cases for trial since the issue has to be decided separately and the evidence has to be separately adduced as to the petitioners service.
Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that it is for the Commission to consider the appropriate course of action to be adopted in cases being tried before it. The strict Rules of evidence and procedure as contained in CPC and the Evidence
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018 18
need not bind down the Commission. However, the basic principles of natural justice are necessarily to be followed by the Commission is its adjudication. A prayer which does not form a part of the application and about which the respondent is not alerted cannot be granted by the Commission on oral submissions. In the above view of the matter, the order of the commission in as much as it directs a joint hearing of the matters may not be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Though the 2[nd] respondent claims to hold a power of attorney in respect of all the complainants that, according to me, will not justify an order for joint hearing without even a prayer being made for that purpose. Whether a joint consideration is called for is a matter which ought to have been considered by the commission with due notice to the opposite party as well.
The question as to deficiency of service is apparently one which has to be proved independently in each of the cases. While a consolidation of the cases or a posting of the cases on the same day would be completely in order, I am of the view that the joint hearing as ordered by the Commission without a prayer being made to that effect was not justified. The order of the commission to the extent it directs a joint hearing is, therefore, set aside. The complaints shall be considered by the
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
19
Commission as it feels fit, in the facts of the case.
These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
**ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE**
Ac
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
20
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21640/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.8/2014 DATED 03.01.2014 WITHOUT DOCUMENTS.**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5, DATED 01.12.2014.**
**EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.08.2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2/COMPLAINANT WITHOUT EXHIBITS.**
**EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION DATED 11.06.2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2/COMPLAINANT.**
**EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION DATED 12.6.2018 FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IN C.C.NO.8/2014.**
**RESPNDENTS'S EXHIBIT:**
**EXHIBIT R2 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2018**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
21
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22487/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1**
**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.7/2014 DATED 03.01.2014 WITHOUT DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION DATED 01.12.2014 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5.**
**EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.09.2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2/COMPLAINT WITHOUT EXHIBITS.**
**EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION DATED 11.06.2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2/COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO.8/2014.**
- **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION NO.97/2018 FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER/PROCEEDINGS AND COPY APPLICATION NO.103/2018 FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMMISSION APPLICATION DATED 12.06.2018 FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER AND 3RD TO 5TH RESPONDENTS IN C.C.NO.7/2014**
**EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 IN W.P.(C)21640 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.**
**RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT:**
**EXHIBIT R2(1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2018**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
22
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22503/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1**
**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.9/2014 DATED 03.01.2014 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITHOUT DOCUMENTS.**
**EXHIBIT P2**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION DATED 26/09/2015 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARITES/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS.**
- **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION DATED 11.06.2018 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN C.C.NO.8/2014.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION NO.99/2018 FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER/ PROCEEDINGS AND COPY APPLICATION NO.105/2018 DATED 12.06.2018 FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/ PETITIONER AND 4TH TO 6HT RESPNDENTS IN C.C. NO.9/2014.**
**EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P[C] 21640 OF 2018.**
**RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT**
**EXHIBIT R2 (1)**
**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2018**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
23
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22742/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1**
**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO. 10/2014 DATED 03.01.2014 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITHOUT DOCUMENTS.**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION DATED 26.09.2015 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 IN C.C.NO. 10/2014.**
**EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION DATED 11.06.2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2/COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO.8/2014.**
**EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION NO.100/2018 FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER/PROCEEDINGS AND COPY APPLICATION NO. 106/2018 FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2018 FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER AND 4TH TO 6TH RESPONDENTS IN C.C.NO. 10/2014.**
**EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C)21640 OF 2018.**
## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT**
**EXHIBIT R2 (1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2018**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018 24
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22820/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO. 11/2014 DATED 03.01.2014 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT WITHOUT DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION DATED 01.12.2014 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER AND 3RD TO 5TH RESPONDENTS IN C.C.NO. 11/2014. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.08.2016 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO.11/2014 WITHOUT EXHIBITS. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION DATED 11.06.2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO. 8/2014. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION NO. 101/2018 FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER/PROCEEDINGS AND COPY APPLICATION NO. 107/2018 DATED 12.06.2018 FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IN C.C.11/2014. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) 21640 OF 2018.**
**RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT EXHIBIT R2 (1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2018**
W.P.(C)Nos.21640, 22487, 22503, 22742, 22820 & 22822 of 2018
25
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22822/2018**
**PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO. 53/2014 DATED 01.06.2015 WITHOUT DOCUMENTS.**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 DATED 22.04.2016.**
**EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION IN C.C.NO. 8 OF 2014 DATED 11.06.2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO. 2/COMPLAINANT.**
**EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/PETITIONER IN C.C.NO. 53/2014.**
**EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 IN W.P.(C) 21640 OF 2018.**
**RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT**
**EXHIBIT R2 (1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2018**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**Sd/-**
**PA TO JUDGE**