Summary of Opinion — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (30 Sep 2013)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition arises from a dispute between Bunga Deniel Babu (petitioner) and M/s Sri Vasudeva Constructions & others (respondents) concerning an agreement for construction of flats. Under the agreement the builder/respondent would construct a block of flats: 18 flats were to be allotted to the builder and 12 flats to the complainant. The 12 flats due to the complainant were ultimately handed over on 30.03.2009, although they were to have been delivered on 18.12.2005. The complainant claimed Rs.16,33,193/- as rent for the delay and for lost rent, and also claimed electricity bills, property tax bills and similar charges.

Procedurally, the revision petition (Revision Petition No. 258 of 2013) was filed in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against an order dated 20/09/2012 of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh (Appeal No. 256/2011). There was a delay of 5 days in filing the revision petition; an application for condonation of delay was filed and the delay was condoned by the Commission. The Bench comprised Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Malik (Presiding Member) and Hon'ble Dr. S.M. Kantikar (Member). Counsel for the parties appeared as noted in the record.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner falls within the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (with the Explanation), thereby entitling him to seek relief before the consumer forum for delays in handing over constructed flats?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd & Another, 2008(10) SCC 345, to support the contention that the petitioner should be treated as a consumer for the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first addressed the procedural delay and condoned the five-day delay in filing the revision petition for the reasons set out in the petition for condonation.

On the merits, the primary legal question identified by the Court was whether the petitioner qualified as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission had concluded he was not a consumer. The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Faqir Chand Gulati (cited above). The Bench analysed the factual matrix of that Supreme Court decision and found it materially different from the present facts (in the cited case only one plot was given for construction with a different allotment arrangement).

The Court examined the petitioner's factual position: he is an LIC Development Officer residing at MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam; he received 12 flats and had sold four of those flats. The Bench observed that there was no evidence that the flats were constructed for the petitioner's personal use. The Court concluded, on the basis of these facts, that the petitioner's purpose was to sell the flats and therefore his case did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) (with the Explanation) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Bench also noted that the State Commission had, in its order, cited authorities which the present Court found to apply closely to the facts of the case. On that basis, the Court found no merit in the revision petition.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The revision petition is dismissed.

Implications:

• The petitioner's attempt to treat himself as a consumer for the purpose of claiming damages for delayed delivery of the flats was rejected by the Commission because the facts indicate the flats were not for his personal use and some were sold by him.
• No order as to costs was made.
• The five-day delay in filing the revision petition was condoned.
• The opinion does not purport to lay down any new legal precedent; it distinguishes the authority relied upon by the petitioner and affirms the State Commission's order on the facts before it.

Case details drawn exclusively from the provided opinion: Revision Petition No. 258 of 2013, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Order dated 30 Sep 2013 (Bench: J.M. Malik & Dr. S.M. Kantikar).