LexBUNGA DANIEL BABU versus MIS SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 293 BUNGA DANIEL BABU _ _,.·. v. MIS SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 944of2016) JULY22, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.2(l)(d) - Consumer - Agreement between the. appellant-land-owner and the builder- re5pondent no. I - Builder required to construct and complete the building within a stipulated time - Apartments constructed were to be shared in the proportion of 40% and 60% between the appellant and builder and in case of non-completion within stipulated time to pay rent to the appellant - Terms of the agreement did not show that it was a joint venture agreement - Appellant was neither partner nor co-adventurer nor participated in the construction business - Since appellant is only entitled to a certain constructed area, it falls within the definition of 'consumer' - Matter remitted to State Commission to re-adjudicate the matter treating the appellant as a consumer. Faqir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and anr. (2008) 10 SCC 345: 2008 (10) SCR 697; Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225: 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 136; Lucknow Development Authority v. MK Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 615; Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583: 1995 (3) SCR 174; Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust v. Toshniwal Brothers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and another (2000) 1 SCC 512: 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 619; CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Association (1980) 2 SCC 31: 1980 (2) SCR 77; CIT v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries (1981) 3 SCC 156: 1981 (3) SCR 489; Punjab University v. Unit Trust of India and others (2015) 2 SCC 669 - relied on. Case Law Reference 2008 (10) SCR 697 293 relied on Para 1 A B c D E F G H 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R. A 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 136 relied on Para8 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 615 relied on . Para9 .1995 (3) SCR 174 relied on Para 12 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 619 relied on Para 14 1980 (2) SCR 77 relied on Para 14 B 1981 (3) SCR 489 relied on Para 14 (2015) 2 sec 669 relied on Para 19 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 944 of 2016. c From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2013 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 258 of2013. Gunturu Prabhakar, K. Maruthi Rao, K. Subba Rao, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advs. for the Appellant. I D. M. Srinivas R. Rao, Arun Devdas, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Advs. for the Re~pondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIP AK MISRA, J. 1. The assail in the present appeal, by special E leave, is to the judgement and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "the National Commission") in Revision Petition No. 258 of2013 whereby the said Commission has approved the decision of the State Consumer Di~putes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad which had reversed the view of the F District Consumer Forum that the complainant is a "consumer" within the definition under Section 2( I)( d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, "the Act") as the agreement of the appellant with the respondents was not a joint venture. The District Forum had arrived at the said decision on the basis oflegal principles stated in Faqir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Lttl anti anr. '. The State Commission G had opined that the claim of the appellant was not adjudicable as the complaint could not be entertained under the Act inasmuch as the parties had entered into an agreement for construction and sharing flats which had the colour of commercial purpose. Thus, the eventual conclusion that the State Commission reached was that the complainant was not a H 1c2oosi 10 sec 345 BUNGA DANIEL BABU v. M/S SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS. [DIPAK Ml SRA, J .] consumer under the Act. The said conclusion has been given the stamp of affirmance by the National Commission. 2. The factual score that is essential to be depicted is that the appellant is the owner of the plot nos. 102, 103 and 104 in survey no. 13/ 1 A2, Patta no. 48 admeasuring 1347 sq. yards situate at Butchirajupalem within the limits of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. Being desirous of developing the site, the land owner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short "the MOU") with the respondents on 18.07.2004 for development of his land by construc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.