SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 493

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
, CJ
M/S. HUBTOWN LTD. & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
VIMAL BHANNUDAS VARAK – Respondent
Revision Petitions|Complaint Nos. 08/2009 to 38/2009|First Appeal Nos. A/15/1001 to A/15/1031



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:

Under the Consumer Protection Act, slum dwellers are deemed consumers despite no direct monetary transactions, establishing an obligation for service providers to fulfill commitments made within rehabilitation agreements.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - Agreement dated 26.12.1994 between petitioners and slum dwellers - Direction to provide permanent alternative flats within stipulated time not fulfilled - Petitioners ordered to pay ₹3,00,000/- as compensation for mental torture plus litigation costs - Dismissal of revision petitions upholding lower forum's findings of deficient service. (Paras 1, 3, 8, 22, 24)

(B) Consumer Defined - Definition covers not only those who pay but also those giving possession for services - Complainants are consumers under the Act despite no monetary consideration paid. (Paras 12, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners committed to providing permanent alternative accommodation to slum dwellers under a rehabilitation scheme in return for temporary eviction. The flats were delayed, leading to mental torture to the complainants, resulting in claims for compensation.

Findings of Court:
The State Commission confirmed previous findings that the petitioners were deficient in their obligations and upheld the compensation decreed by the lower forum as justified.

Issues: Whether the complainants were consumers under the Act and whether the complaints were maintainable against the developers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the arrangement under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme constituted a consumer relationship. The forums below rightly determined the petitioners were deficient in service and confirmed the corresponding compensation ruling.

Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of revision petitions (Para 1)
2. analysis of consumer rights and jurisdiction (Para 10 , 14)
3. court's response to petitioner's objections. (Para 11)
4. arguments by the petitioners regarding jurisdiction (Para 12)
5. legal basis for consumer definition and jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 15)
6. ratio from supreme court judgments on consumer rights (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. continued analysis of consumer protection applicability. (Para 19 , 20)
8. final observations on delayed possession (Para 21 , 22 , 24)
9. conclusion and dismissal of revision petitions (Para 23)

ORDER

1. The present batch of the Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties in the Complaint before the District Forum, assailing the Common Order dated 12.10.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal Nos. A/15/1001 to A/15/1031. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed all the First Appeals preferred by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against the Common Order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Mumbai Sub-Urban District (for short, “the District Forum”) in Complaint Nos. 08/2009 to 38/2009 and upheld Order of the District Forum. By the said Order, the District Forum while partly allowing the Complaints filed by the Complainants, has directed the Petitioners/Opposite Parties to pay a compensation of ₹3,00,000/- to each of the Complainants for mental torture and harassment within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the Order failing which the amount was to carry interest @18% p.a. from 07.01.2007 till actual payment. Besides, Petitioners were also directed to pay a sum of ₹10,000/- to each of the Complainants for cost of litigation.

02. Since all the Revision Petitions have arisen from a Common Order passed by the State Commission, we dispose of the same with this Common Order.

03. Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present Revision Petitions are that the Complainants were residing at Rukminibai Chawl, Room No. 60, Saiwadi, Teligalli, Andheri (East), Mumbai situated on the land City Survey No. 428, 429 and 430, Revenue Gundavali, Tehsil Andhri, Mumbai Suburban District. Under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Government of Maharashtra has declared the said land as Slum and gave a right to the Hut Holders/Slum Dwellers to appoint the Developer for development of the said Slum. The Petitioners/Opposite Parties promised to the Respondents/Complainants and other Hut Holders to give a permanent accommodation in lieu of their premises in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and the Respondents/Complainants accordingly accepted the said offer. Necessary approval in this regard was obtained from Saiwadi Slum Rehabilitation Authority by the Petitioners. An Agreement dated 26.12.1994 (for short, the “Agreement”) was executed between the parties, according to which the Petitioners were allowed to construct Free Sale Buildings along with the Rehabilitation Buildings for rehabilitation of the Slum Dwellers including Complainants. In terms of the Agreement and the guidelines of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Petitioners were under an obligation to give permanent alternative Flats to the Complainants and other Hut Holders within a period of 18 to 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. On 19.05.2005, the Respondents/ Complainants and other Hut Holders received a notice from the Petitioners to vacate their huts and hence they vacated the land in the month of May, 2005 and shifted to a Transit Camp. However, since possession could not be handed over within the stipulated time, after protests from the Respondents, the Petitioners in writing on 02.04.2007, promised to the Complainants to hand over the possession within next 15 months. But still the Petitioners failed to keep the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top