LexM/S. NARNE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 4 S.C.R. 574 MIS. NARNE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. ETC. ETC. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4432-4450 of 2012) MAY 10, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.2(1)(o) -Activities of appellant-company involving offer of plots for sale to its C customers with assurance of development of infrastructure/ amenities, lay-out approvals etc. - Whether activities of the appellant-company was a 'service' within the meaning of clause (o) of s.2(1) of the Act and amenable to the jurisdiction of the fora established under the Act - Held: Having regard D to the nature of the transaction between the appellant- company and its custome.âĒs-purchasers which involved much more than a simple transfer of a piece of immovable property, it is clear that the same constituted 'service' within the meaning of the Act - It was not a case where the appellant- E company was selling the given property with all advantages and/or disadvantages on "as is where is" basis - It was a case where a clear cut assurance was made to the purchasers as to the nature and the extent of development that would be carried out by the appellant-company as a part of the package F under which sale of fully developed plots with assured facilities was to be made in favour of the purchasers for valuable consideration - Thus, the appellant-company had indeed undertaken to provide a service - Any deficiency or defect in such service would make it accountable before the competent consumer forum at the instance of purchasers. G The question which arose for consideration in the instant appeals was whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant-company was a service provider within the meaning of the Consumer Protection H 574 NARNE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. ETC. ETC. v. 575 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. Act and thus amenable to the jurisdiction of the fora under A the said Act. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: The High Court was perfectly justified in holding that the activities of the appellant-company B involving offer of plots for sale to its customers/members with assurance of development of infrastructure/ amenities, lay-out approvals etc. was a 'service' within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act and would, therefore, be amenable to the C jurisdiction of the fora established under the statute. Having regard to the nature of the transaction between the appellant-company and its customers which involved much more than a simple transfer of a piece of immovable property, it is clear that the same constituted 'service' D within the meaning of the Act. It was not a case where the appellant-company was selling the given property with all advantages and/or disadvantages on "as is where is" basis. It was a case where a clear cut assurance was made to tile purchasers as to the nature and the extent E of development that would be carried out by the appellant-company as a part of the package under which sale of fully developed plots with assured facilities was to be made in favour of the purchasers for valuable consideration. Thus, the appellant-company had indeed F undertaken to provide a service. Any deficiency or defect in such service would make it accountable before the competent consumer forum at the instance of consumers like the respondents. [Para 7] [581-E-H; 582-A-C] Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 G SCC 243: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 615; Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711: 2007 (7) SCR 47 - relied on. U. T. Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Amarjeet H 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A Singh and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660: 2009 (4) SCR 541 - distinguished. 8 Case Law Reference: relied on Para 1, 3 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 615 2009 (4) SCR 541 distinguished Para 7 2007 (7) SCR 47 relied on Para 8 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. c 4432-4450 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.08.2010 of the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 28246 of 2009, 302, 3947, 5091 of 2010, 26520 of2009, 360, 364, 405, 429, 304, 305, 339, 356, 357, 5003, D 5088, 5121, 5131 and 5903 of 2010. T. Anamika for the Appellants. Mohan Parasaran, ASG, Indra Sawhney, D.L. Chidanand, E Sushma Suri, C. Mukund, Pankaj Jain, P.V. Sarvana Raja, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Ram Swarup Sharma, AP Ro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.