NCDRC Sets Aside Telangana State Commission Order Returning Flat-Buyer Complaints, Restores Cases for Merits Hearing

The National Commission held that a State Consumer Commission has no power to return complaints and directed revival of five flat-buyer cases pending since 2018.

Five flat buyers who had been waiting since 2018 for a decision on their complaints against M/s Lodha Healthy Constructions & Developers Pvt. Ltd. received relief from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 20 May 2026. A bench of Justice A.P. Sahi, President, and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, Member, set aside orders dated 26 November 2025 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) that had returned the complaints to the complainants for presentation before an “appropriate court.” The National Commission held that neither the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers any power on a consumer commission to return a complaint, and that the State Commission's reliance on Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was legally impermissible. The five original complaints were revived and restored before the State Commission for a decision on merits.

The Dispute Before the Commission

The five complainants — Suresh Babu Bollineni, Venkata Reddy Avuthu, Sridevi Yeerella, P.V. Rama Raju, and Suresh Kumar Raju Buddaraju — had each filed complaints before the Telangana SCDRC in 2018 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Their grievances related to flats in the Lodha Meridian project at KPHB, Hyderabad, and included claims for delayed possession, non-delivery of an occupancy certificate, failure to provide covered parking, shortfall in amenities, and compensation for mental agony.

In one of the complaints, CC/150/2018, the reliefs sought included directions to hand over the occupancy certificate for Flat No. D-1604, allocation of covered parking, provision of domestic power as per the agreement, removal of a compound wall between Lodha Meridian and Lodha Bellezza, and payment of amounts totalling several lakhs towards interest on sale consideration, deficit in undivided share of land, shortfall in amenities, and compensation.

The builder, at the outset in 2019, filed interim applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in each complaint, contending that the State Commission lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the total claims exceeded Rs. 1 crore, the then-applicable ceiling for State Commissions under the 1986 Act. A common order dated 26 September 2022 rejected those applications, holding that the State Commission had jurisdiction. The builder then filed a first appeal before the NCDRC only in one complaint, CC/83/2018 (filed by Ravi Chandra Reddy), which involved a flat purchased for Rs. 2,77,74,702.

The NCDRC's Earlier Order in FA/500/2023 and Its Fallout

On 13 March 2025, the NCDRC allowed FA/500/2023 in the Ravi Chandra Reddy matter. Applying the principle from Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 1117, and Renu Singh v. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online NCDRC 975, the Commission held that pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by adding the consideration paid to the compensation claimed. In that case the cumulative figure came to Rs. 3,84,01,982, placing it within the National Commission's jurisdiction. The State Commission's order was set aside with liberty to the complainant to approach the National Commission.

Ravi Chandra Reddy challenged that order before the Supreme Court. Special Leave Petition No. 51752/2025 was dismissed, with the Court finding no ground to interfere.

The builder then represented to the Telangana SCDRC that the order in FA/500/2023 applied equally to the remaining 42 complaints pending before it. The State Commission accepted this position and, on 26 November 2025, passed orders in the five present complaints returning them to the complainants with a direction to present them before the “appropriate court” within 45 days, with liberty to exclude time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Complainants' Route to the National Commission

After receiving the returned complaints, the five complainants filed fresh complaints before the NCDRC in February 2026 as Diary Nos. NC/DN/16 to 20 of 2026. When these were taken up on 19 March 2026, the Commission observed that in view of the Apex Court's decision in Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., AIR 2021 SC 1441, the fresh complaints might not be entertainable. Counsel for the complainants then sought permission to file formal appeals against the State Commission's orders of 26 November 2025, which was granted.

First Appeal Nos. 187, 188, 189, 190, and 194 of 2026 were accordingly filed. The delay in filing was condoned by the Commission, which relied on Mool Chandra v. Union of India & Anr., 2024 SCC Online SC 1878, Sheo Rai Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, and Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Limited, (2021) 7 SCC 313. Notices were issued to the builder on 25 March 2026, and the matter was heard on 6 May 2026 before being reserved for pronouncement.

The Builder's Submissions

Counsel for the builder, Mr. Rahul Kripalani, argued that the State Commission's order was correct because it was based on the NCDRC's own order in FA/500/2023, which had been confirmed by the Supreme Court. He submitted that a co-ordinate bench having taken a view confirmed by the Apex Court was binding and that there was no error in the return of the complaints.

On the fresh complaints, he argued that they had to be treated as de novo filings. Since the paid consideration in each of the five complaints was less than Rs. 2 crores, the pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 lay exclusively with the State Commission, not the National Commission. For this he relied on EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd., (2020) 12 SCC 667, which held that upon return of a plaint for want of jurisdiction, the suit must proceed afresh before the competent court.

He further contended that Neena Aneja was distinguishable because that case dealt with complaints correctly filed under the 1986 Act that were sought to be transferred on account of the change in pecuniary limits under the 2019 Act. The present complaints, he argued, had been wrongly filed before the State Commission from the outset, and Neena Aneja could not save them.

How the National Commission Reasoned

The Commission addressed three distinct legal questions: whether the State Commission had the power to return the complaints; whether the fresh complaints could be entertained by the National Commission; and whether the order in FA/500/2023 operated as a binding precedent on these five cases.

No power to return complaints. The Commission held that neither the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor the 2019 Act contains any provision applying Order 7 Rule 10 or Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure to consumer proceedings. Regulation 26 of the 2020 Regulations under the 2019 Act — which is pari materia to Regulation 26 of the 2005 Regulations under the 1986 Act — directs parties to avoid invoking CPC provisions. The Commission cited Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo, (2011) 8 SCC 539, for the proposition that the CPC does not apply to National Consumer Forum proceedings. It also relied on Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 541, for the position that the State Commission has no inherent powers.

Under Section 12(3) of the 1986 Act and Section 36(2) of the 2019 Act, a commission may either admit a complaint for being proceeded with or reject it. There is no third option of returning it. The Commission held that if a commission lacks pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction, it can consign the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate forum, but it cannot formally return the complaint in the manner contemplated by Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. The ratio of EXL Careers was therefore inapplicable to consumer disputes.

Fresh complaints not entertainable by the National Commission. The Commission accepted the builder's submission on this point. Under the 2019 Act, Section 58(1)(a)(i) confers jurisdiction on the National Commission only where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs. 10 crores. Sections 34(1) and 47(1)(a)(i) place complaints where the paid consideration does not exceed Rs. 1 crore with the District Commission, and those between Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 10 crores with the State Commission. The Commission applied its own decision in M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., CC No. 833 of 2020, decided on 28 August 2020, which explained that under the 2019 Act only the consideration paid — not the consideration plus compensation — determines pecuniary jurisdiction. Since the paid consideration in each of the five complaints was less than Rs. 2 crores, the National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain them as fresh complaints.

FA/500/2023 not an impediment. The Commission distinguished the earlier order on two grounds. First, FA/500/2023 involved a complaint where the cumulative pecuniary value was Rs. 3,84,01,982 — a figure calculated under the 1986 Act's methodology of adding consideration to compensation. The present five complaints, assessed on the paid-consideration basis applicable under the 2019 Act, fell below Rs. 2 crores. Second, the specific question of whether a consumer commission can return a complaint was never raised, argued, or decided in FA/500/2023. The order of 13 March 2025 therefore bound only the parties to that proceeding and did not govern these five cases.

The Pragmatic Remedy

Having held both that the State Commission could not return the complaints and that the National Commission could not entertain them afresh, the Commission confronted a practical impasse. The complaints had been pending since 2018, pleadings had been exchanged over seven years, and the complainants could not be rendered remediless.

The Commission observed that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission under the 2019 Act — covering complaints where paid consideration is between Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 10 crores — was in fact available for these complaints as on date. It would not be rational to put the clock back and require fresh proceedings before the State Commission when the State Commission already had jurisdiction and the parties had already exchanged pleadings. The Commission found that requiring a fresh start would be to the advantage of the builder and to the disadvantage of the complainants, and that this could not be the intent of a consumer protection statute.

The Commission also noted that the State Commission could have passed an order of dismissal on pecuniary grounds if that were permissible in law, but had instead passed a “peculiar order” of return that was legally unsustainable. The impugned orders of 26 November 2025 were accordingly set aside.

Order

All five first appeals — FA/187, 188, 189, 190, and 194 of 2026 — were allowed. The orders dated 26 November 2025 passed by the Telangana SCDRC in all five complaints were quashed. The complaints filed by the complainant-appellants before the State Commission stand revived and restored. The State Commission is directed to hear the complaints on merits and decide them as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months, from the stage they had already reached.

The five fresh complaints filed before the National Commission through Diary Nos. NC/DN/16 to 20 of 2026 were consigned, without prejudice to the complainants' right to pursue their complaints before the State Commission as directed. The Commission clarified that it had not touched upon the merits of the complaints.