The Supreme Court has set aside orders of consumer fora that referred a long-pending housing society flat possession delay complaint to arbitration. The Court directed restoration of the complaint for adjudication on merits.
Background of the Case
The appellant, T.K.A. Padmanabhan, became a member of Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. in January 2003 and was allotted Flat No. 232. An agreement was executed on 27.02.2004. Alleging delay in handing over possession, he filed Consumer Complaint No. 579 of 2005 before the District Consumer Forum-VII, New Delhi.
The District Forum initially rejected the society’s application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but later referred the matter to arbitration after remand by the Delhi High Court. The State Commission and National Commission upheld this view. The appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue
Whether a consumer complaint, once admitted by the District Forum, can be referred to arbitration on the basis of an arbitration clause in the agreement, or whether the consumer fora must decide the matter on merits under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Justice Vikram Nath (with Justice V. Mohana) allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the District Forum (27.07.2009), State Commission (26.02.2013), and National Commission (04.01.2016).
The Court held:
- The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation providing a simple, inexpensive, and expeditious remedy. Section 3 makes it clear that the remedy is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law.
- Once a complaint is admitted and allowed to proceed, the proviso to Section 12(4) prohibits its transfer to any other court, tribunal, or authority.
- An arbitration clause in a private agreement cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora. Reliance was placed on precedents including Fair Air Engineers, Thirumurugan Cooperative Society, National Seeds Corporation, and Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh.
The National Commission also erred in dismissing the revision on the ground that the appellant was no longer a “consumer” after taking possession. Claims for compensation for delay in possession arise from the pre-possession period and require adjudication on merits.
The Supreme Court restored the complaint (renumbered as Complaint No. 712 of 2007) to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dwarka, directing expeditious disposal (preferably within one year).
Key Takeaways
- Consumer fora retain jurisdiction even in the presence of an arbitration clause once the complaint is admitted.
- Arbitration cannot displace the statutory consumer remedy, which is additional and protective in nature.
- Claims for delay in possession of flats/houses remain maintainable before consumer fora even after eventual delivery of possession.
- This judgment strengthens consumer rights in real estate and housing society disputes.
Case Details
Case Name: T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 10724 of 2016
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Ms. Justice V. Mohana
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 04 June 2026
Click HERE for full ORDER.
Lawcutor 