SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUM versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 824 · Decided: 14-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUM
v.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS
LTD. & ANR
(Civil Appeal No.1118 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.2(1)(d) and s.12(1) and its
Explanation – Consumer – Meaning of – Appellant is a statutory
body under the provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act,
1972 – It consisted of members of the apartments in a multi storey
building as per the declaration of opposite party under the 1972
Act – Appellant filed complaint before National Commission –
Complaint resisted on the ground that the appellant is not a consumer
within the meaning of Act, therefore, has no locus standi to file
complaint – National Commission rejected the complaint holding
that the appellant was not a recognised consumer association within
the meaning of s.12(1)(b) of the Act – Held : Conjoint reading of
the various relevant provisions of the 1972 Act and the Bye-laws of
the Appellant- Condominium showed that appellant came into
existence as per the mandatory provisions under the 1972 Act –
Explanation to s.12 of the Act makes it clear that, the recognised
consumer association as referred under s.12(1)(b) of the Act means
any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force – By applying
Explanation, the appellant cannot be said to be a voluntary
consumer association so as to maintain a complaint petition – A
voluntary consumer association is a body formed by a group of
persons coming together, of their own will and without any pressure
or influence from anyone and without being mandated by any other
provisions of law – Appellant which consists of members of flat
owners in a building, which has come into existence pursuant to a
declaration which is required to be made compulsorily under the
provisions of 1972 Act, cannot be said to be a voluntary association
– Further, it does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 824
824
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
825
defined under s.2(1)(d) of the Act –Karnataka Apartment Ownership
Act, 1972.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. To maintain a complaint under the provisions of
the Act, complainant must be either a ‘consumer’ within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act or it must fit into Section
12(1) of the Act. As per the Section 12(1)(a), a consumer to whom
such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered
or such service provided or agreed to be provided can file a
complaint. Under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act, any ‘recognised consumer association’ whether the
consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be
sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided
is a member of such association or not can file a complaint. As
per the Explanation to Section 12 of the Act, ‘recognised
consumer association’ means any voluntary consumer association
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law for
the time being in force. It is clear from the Explanation that only
a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 or any other law can maintain a complaint under Section
12(1)(b) of the Act. The Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act,
1972 is an Act of the State which is enacted with a view to provide
for the ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to
make such apartment heritable and transferable property and for
matters connected therewith. As per Section 13 of the 1972 Act,
Declarations, Deeds of Apartments and copies of floor plans are
required to be registered under provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908. The appellant body came into existence pursuant to
clause (8) of the Declaration. [Paras 7-9][828-F; 829 E-H; 830 A-
E]
2. A conjoint reading of the various relevant provisions of
the 1972 Act and the Bye-laws of the Condominium would show
that the appellant-body has come into existence as per the
mandatory provisions under the 1972 Act. It is an Act to provide
ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to make
such apartment heritable and transferable property. The
Explanation to Section 12 of the Act makes it clear that, the
recognised consumer association as referred under Section
SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
12(1)(b) of the A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.