DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of June 2023
Filed on: 18/11/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 376/2020
COMPLAINANT
Vedang V Prabhu, S/o.VN Virwamohan Prabhu 21/111(19/34A), Venkatadri, Sree Venkatachalapathy Devasom Street, Palluruthy, Cochin-682006.,
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Colive, M/s Colife Advisory Private Limited, Summit No.13, First Floor, 1" A Cross, Anantharam Reddy Layout, Chinnappannahalli, Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli, Bengaluru 360037, Represented by its Managing Director
(O.P rep. by Adv.Kavya P Prasad, IInd Floor, N.P.Building Cemetery Junction, Chitoor Road, Kochi-682 018)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant started occupying space 43 in the property named Colive 301- Sanjana Emerald, Vadapalani - Chennai on 02/03/2020. Due to the pandemic, the complainant left Chennai on 20/03/2020 and did not occupy the property. The complainant paid full rent every month with a promised concession of 40%, but the discount was only given for the month of July. The complainant issued a notice for vacating the property on 03/07/2020 and returned the keys on 16/07/2020. Despite raising concerns and attempting to resolve the issue, the complainant's grievances were not addressed by the opposite party. The complainant received baseless emails threatening to label them as a defaulter with credit scoring agencies. The complainant sent a lawyer's notice, to which the opposite party replied with an untenable response. The complainant submitted an Advocate Notice, mail communications, and a statement of reconciliation as evidence.
2. Notice
The notice was issued by the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite party received the notice and filed their version.
3) THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The opposite party strongly opposes the complaint, arguing that the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. They contend that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act which specifically deals with rent, rent arrears, and deposits. They claim that a person entering into a long-term rent agreement is not entitled to the benefits of consumer legislation. The opposite party admits that the complainant checked in on 03/03/2020 and checked out on 16/07/2020, but disputes the claim that a rent concession was given for the period of April to June 2020. They argue that the complainant is bound by the terms of the agreement and that there has been no violation or deficiency in service. They point out that termination during the lock-in period is restricted, and any outstanding rent and charges are due from the complainant. The opposite party denies allegations of failing to communicate and states that a detailed mail was sent to the complainant with financial figures. They argue that the complainant's notice contains false statements and that the complaint lacks a valid cause of action. They request the court to dismiss the case with costs.
4). Evidence
The complainant had produced a proof affidavit and 3 documents.
1.Copy of the Advocate Notice.
2. Copies of the Mail communications with the Opposite Party.
3. Copies of the Statement of reconciliation along with copy of invoices raised and payment evidences.
5). The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6). The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The present case was filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking relief against the opposite party a refund of the Security Deposit, rent for the unoccupied period, and other associated costs.
According to the version of the opposite party, they argue that the alleged facts of the case fall under the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, which is a specific legislation governing rent, rent arrears, and deposits. They contend that any dispute related to rent and rent arrears falls within the purview of this Act, and therefore, the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the commission.
Furthermore, they claim that a person who enters into a rent agreement for a long period is not entitled to the benefits provided to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. They argue that the case lacks the basic elements necessary for it to be maintainable before the commission, and they request the court to dismiss the case.
After carefully considering the facts, arguments, and evidence presented by the parties, the following findings are made
Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
The primary issue to be determined is whether the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The opposite party contends that the case falls under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, which specifically deals with rent, rent arrears, and deposits. They argue that a person entering into a long-term rent agreement is not entitled to the benefits of consumer legislation.
Upon careful examination, it is evident that the complainant's grievances primarily revolve around matters related to rent, rent concessions, and the return of the security deposit. These issues are explicitly covered under the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. The Consumer Protection Act, on the other hand, is a general legislation aimed at protecting the interests of consumers.
In light of the specific legislation available to address the disputes related to rent and rent arrears, it is clear that the present case falls within the ambit of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. Consequently, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The established principle in law that when there is a specific legislation exists to address the issues raised in a complaint, the jurisdiction of consumer commission is excluded. In such cases, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, and the parties are directed to approach the appropriate forum established under the specific legislation to solve their dispute.
In light of the above findings and conclusions, this Commission hereby dismisses the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
For the sake of brevity issue Nos. (i) to (IV) are considered together. Given the finding that the complaint is not maintainable, it becomes unnecessary to delve into the issues of deficiency in service or the entitlement of the complainant to any relief under the Consumer Protection Act.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 30th day of June 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
1.Copy of the Advocate Notice.
2. Copies of the Mail communications with the Opposite Party.
3. Copies of the Statement of reconciliation along with copy of invoices raised and payment evidences.
