Sujit Kumar Banerjee Vs. M/s. Rameshwaran and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7577 of 2005
[From the Order dated 4.7.2005 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 12 of 2003]
[From the Order dated 4.7.2005 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 12 of 2003]
Petitioner: Sujit Kumar Banerjee
Respondent: M/s. Rameshwaran and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7577 of 2005
[From the Order dated 4.7.2005 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 12 of 2003]
[From the Order dated 4.7.2005 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 12 of 2003]
Judges: R.V. Raveendran & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 10, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate, Mr. Santosh Mishra, Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma and Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate for the Respondents.
Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
Consumer Protection
Housing construction – Applying the test laid down in Faqir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (appearing in this issue) [JT 2008 (7) SC 552] held that agreement is not a joint venture. Matter remitted back to National Commission for fresh disposal on merits.
Housing construction – Applying the test laid down in Faqir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (appearing in this issue) [JT 2008 (7) SC 552] held that agreement is not a joint venture. Matter remitted back to National Commission for fresh disposal on merits.
JUDGEMENT:
R.V. Raveendran, J.
1. This appeal by special leave by the land-owner challenges the rejection of his complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (`the Act’ for short) against the builder, as not maintainable.
2. Complaint No.21/2002 filed by the appellant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand on 2.8.2002 was allowed by the State Commission by order dated 15.11.2002 with a direction to the respondents (builder) to pay Rs.11,03,787/- to the appellant with costs. The appeal filed by the respondents before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was allowed on 4.7.2005. The National Commission, following its decision in Faqir Chand Gulati v. M/s. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Revision Petition No.1878 of 2000 dated 3.2.2004) held that the appellant is not a consumer and therefore the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant has challenged the said order in this appeal.
3. The appeal against the decision of the National Commission in Faqir Chand Gulati (supra) and this appeal were heard together. We have rendered a separate decision today in Faqir Chand Gulati v. M/s. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [C.A. No.3302 of 2005], allowing the appeal and holding the complaint maintainable.
4. Applying the tests laid down by us in Faqir Chand Gulati (supra), we find that the agreement between the parties in this case is not a joint venture agreement but an agreement for construction of a residential building and delivery of an agreed percentage of the constructed area to the landowners. In fact, the agreement [Article IX(1)] clearly states that it is not a joint venture. Consequently, the appellant is a consumer and respondents are `service providers’ and the complaint of the appellant is maintainable.
5. As the National Commission has not dealt with the matter on merits but has disposed of the matter on a preliminary point, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the National Commission and remit the matter to the National Commission for fresh disposal on merits, in accordance with law.
1. This appeal by special leave by the land-owner challenges the rejection of his complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (`the Act’ for short) against the builder, as not maintainable.
2. Complaint No.21/2002 filed by the appellant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand on 2.8.2002 was allowed by the State Commission by order dated 15.11.2002 with a direction to the respondents (builder) to pay Rs.11,03,787/- to the appellant with costs. The appeal filed by the respondents before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was allowed on 4.7.2005. The National Commission, following its decision in Faqir Chand Gulati v. M/s. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Revision Petition No.1878 of 2000 dated 3.2.2004) held that the appellant is not a consumer and therefore the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant has challenged the said order in this appeal.
3. The appeal against the decision of the National Commission in Faqir Chand Gulati (supra) and this appeal were heard together. We have rendered a separate decision today in Faqir Chand Gulati v. M/s. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [C.A. No.3302 of 2005], allowing the appeal and holding the complaint maintainable.
4. Applying the tests laid down by us in Faqir Chand Gulati (supra), we find that the agreement between the parties in this case is not a joint venture agreement but an agreement for construction of a residential building and delivery of an agreed percentage of the constructed area to the landowners. In fact, the agreement [Article IX(1)] clearly states that it is not a joint venture. Consequently, the appellant is a consumer and respondents are `service providers’ and the complaint of the appellant is maintainable.
5. As the National Commission has not dealt with the matter on merits but has disposed of the matter on a preliminary point, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the National Commission and remit the matter to the National Commission for fresh disposal on merits, in accordance with law.
