M. HEMALATHA DEVI Vs. B. UDAYASRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The Appellants before this Court have challenged two Orders of the Telangana High Court. The first is the Order, dtd. 19/5/2022, dismissing the Application of the Appellants filed for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Arbitration Act, 1996'). It was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the dispute was pending before a Judicial Authority, which is the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'District Consumer Forum'), where a Complaint has been filed by the other party to the Agreement, who is a Consumer and therefore, the Appellants have the option to move an Application under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 for reference before Arbitration. Consequently, the Appellants moved an Application for referring the dispute for Arbitration. The District Consumer Forum dismissed this Application on the ground that the Complainant has invoked a Public law remedy before a "Judicial Authority", under a beneficial legislation for Consumers, which is the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'The 2019 Act") and therefore, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the dispute is non-arbitrable. Consequent to the dismissal of their Application under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the Appellants filed a Review Application before the High Court for review of its earlier Order, dtd. 19/5/2022. This Review Application was dismissed vide the Second Order of the High Court, dtd. 25/11/2022, (which is again impugned before this Court), on the ground that the Appellants had already acted upon the Order, dtd. 19/5/2022, and therefore, is now estopped from seeking review of the Order, dtd. 19/5/2022. It is these two Orders, which are under challenge before this Court.

(3.) The facts as they stand today are that the Complaint filed by the Consumer (the Sole Respondent before this Court), has already been allowed by the District Consumer Forum and the Builders (i.e., the Appellants before this Court), have been directed to handover the possession of the Plot along with the constructed Villa and pay a Compensation of Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) and a cost of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh Only) with default stipulation. The findings given by the District Consumer Forum disclose the reasons as to why the Builder backed out of its promise and made a default: