Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad,
President & Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
FAQIR CHAND GULATI—Appellant
versus
UPPAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal No. 508 of 1996—Decided on 4.10.2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. H.D. Bedi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. A.H. Narang, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definitions of 'consumer' and 'services' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the application of these definitions to the nature of the transaction in the Collaboration Agreement.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Collaboration Agreement - Section 15 - Act Section List: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)(ii), Section 2(1)(o) - The court discussed the definitions of 'consumer' and 'services' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and interpreted a Collaboration Agreement to determine the nature of the transaction between the parties. The court highlighted the joint venture nature of the agreement and the absence of a simple hiring of services, leading to the conclusion that the dispute did not fall within the ambit of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, regarding a Collaboration Agreement with the respondents. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was not maintainable under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was not a 'consumer' and the respondent was not a provider of 'services' under the Act. The court also noted that the reliefs claimed by the appellant had already been complied with by the respondents.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of whether the appellant was a consumer, whether the respondent provided services, and whether the appellant was entitled to any relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the transaction in the Collaboration Agreement was a joint venture, and there was no element of hiring of services simplicitor. Therefore, the dispute did not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that it was devoid of merits.
Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) assailing the order of the District Forum No. II dated 10.5.1996, passed in Complaint Case No. 1866/96 - entitled Sh. Faqir Chand Gulati v. M/s. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant was the owner in occupation of the premises built on free-hold plot of land, measuring 308 sq. yard, bearing No. L-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048. The appellant and the respondents entered into a ‘Collaboration Agreement’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’), dated 17.5.1991. In terms of the said Agreement the respondents were to demolish the existing structure and in its place were to raise a three storey building, at their own costs. In lieu of the appellant’s providing the plot of land, the respondents were to allocate, the entire ground floor alongwith a servant room, in the proposed building, to be raised on the said land, as well as were to pay a non-refundable amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the appellant. The remaining portion of the building, i.e. first floor and the second floor including the servant room were to fall to the share of the respondents, who were given the right to either retain or sell the said first and second floors to any third party. In pursuance of the abovesaid Agreement the building was constructed and the appellant was also put in possession of the portion allotted to him as well as was handed over a cheque for the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-. However, certain disputes arose between the parties and thereafter the complainant filed a complaint under the Act, before the District Forum praying for the following reliefs/directions to the respondents :
(i) to return original sale deed and other connected papers/documents relating to property No. L-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048;
(ii) to supply C and D Forms to be obtained by the respondents from MCD or other Authorities to the appellant;
(iii) to supply to the complainant Security Deposit Receipts for installation of electricity meter; and
(iv) to pay a sum of Rs. 4,266.64 paise, to the complainant being charges paid to DESU for change of electricity meters.
3. The respondents in their reply/written version filed before the District Forum took several preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint under the Act, and also offered to redress grievances of the complainant in the complaint, regarding return of original documents as well as Security Deposit Receipts for installation of electricity meter and also expressed their willingness to pay Rs. 4,266.64 paise to the appellant on his giving certain undertakings, as requested for by the respondents. Since the appellant refused to give undertaking as desired by the respondents the matter was decided on merits and the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the preliminary ground that the case of the complainant being based on the ‘Collaboration Agreement’ was not maintainable under the Act, as the said Agreement provided for a specific remedy in terms of Clause 23 for specific performance of the Agreement and as such, the said Agreement could not be construed as a contract for performance of a ‘service’ hired or availed of for consideration as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, and thus the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
4. The appellant aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present appeal before us. On notice the respondents have put in their appearance through Mr. Arun Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.H. Narang, Advocate.
5. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the detailed arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties. In view of the pleadings and documents/material on record as well as the contentions advanced at the Bar on behalf of both the
