2016 Supreme(SC) 565

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, N.V. Ramana, JJ.
BUNGA DANIEL BABU – Appellant
VERSUS
M/S SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.944 OF 2016 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1633 of 2015)
Decided on : 22-7-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
A person who buys goods and uses them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment is within the definition of the expression ‘consumer’. Whether a person would fall within the definition of “consumer” or not would be a question of fact in every case.
Title or caption or nomenclature of the instrument/document is not determinative of the nature and character of the instrument/document, though the name usually gives some indication of the nature of the document.

Headnote:(a) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – A person who buys goods and uses them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment is within the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ – Whether a person would fall within the definition of “consumer” or not would be a question of fact in every case. (Para 12, 14, 18, 19)

       (1994) 4 SCC 225; (1994) 1 SCC 243; (1995) 3 SCC 583; (2000) 1 SCC 512; (1980) 2 SCC 31; (2008) 10 SCC 345; (2015) 2 SCC 669;

       (1981) 3 SCC 156 – Referred

       (b) Interpretation of documents – Title or caption or nomenclature of the instrument/document is not determinative of the nature and character of the instrument/document, though the name usually gives some indication of the nature of the document. (Para 18)

       (c) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – MOU – Appellant neither a partner nor a co-adventurer – Has no say or control over construction – Does not participate in the business – Only entitled to a certain constructed area – Held, appellant is a consumer under the Act. (Para 21)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant is the owner of the plot nos. 102, 103 and 104 in survey no. 13/1A2, Patta no. 48 admeasuring 1347 sq. yards situate at Butchirajupalem within the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation.

       The land owner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the respondents for development of his land by construction of a multi-storied building comprising of five floors, with elevator facility and parking space. Under the MOU, the apartments constructed were to be shared in the proportion of 40% and 60% between the appellant and the respondent No. 1. Additionally, it was stipulated that the construction was to be completed within 19 months from the date of approval of the plans by the Municipal Corporation and in case of non-completion within the said time, a rent of Rs. 2000/- per month for each flat was to be paid to the appellant. An addendum to the MOU required the respondents to provide a separate stair case to the ground floor. It also required the respondents to intimate the progress of the construction to the appellant and further required the appellant to register 14 out of the 18 flats before the completion of the construction of the building in favour of purchasers of the respondents.

       The plans were approved on 18.05.2004 and it should have been completed by 18.12.2005. However, the occupancy certificates for the 12 flats were handed over to the occupants only on 30.03.2009, resulting in delay of about three years and three months. In addition, the appellant had certain other grievances pertaining to deviations from sanction plans and non-completion of various other works and other omissions for which he claimed a sum of Rs.19,33,193/-. These claims were repudiated by the respondents.

       The appellant approached the District Forum for redressal of his grievances. The District Forum opined that the complainant came under the definition of Consumer. It partly allowed the claim in favour of the appellant-complainant by awarding a sum of Rs. 15,96,000/-towards rent for delayed construction, Rs. 19,800/-as reimbursement of vacant land tax, Rs. 70,000/-as cost for rectification of defects in the premises and Rs. 25,000/-for mental agony. It was further directed that the abovesaid sum shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. Cost of Rs. 10,000/-was also awarded.

       The respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission which came to hold that the appellant-complainant did not come within the ambit of definition of “consumer” under the Act and accordingly dismissed his claims as not maintainable.

       The appellant-complainant invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission which concurred with the view expressed by the State Commission.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellant is a consumer.

       Result: Appeal allowed.