Slum dwellers qualify as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, ensuring their rights to seek redress for service deficiencies, including delays in alternative housing promises.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora affirmed - Orders from State Commission upheld, confirming delayed possession of permanent alternative flats to slum dwellers as deficient service - Compensation for mental harassment awarded based on failure to provide timely alternative housing - Petitioners' claims of lack of consumer status and jurisdictional bar by Maharashtra Slum Act rejected. (Paras 1, 6, 8, 24)

(B) Legal obligation of Developers under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme established - Service provider obligations defined within consumer context - Agreement provisions affirmed by court - No privity of contract barrier to consumer claims. (Paras 6, 10, 17)

Facts of the case:
The complainants, slum dwellers, vacated their huts under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme based on promises by developers to provide permanent alternative accommodation, which was not fulfilled within the agreed timeline, resulting in multiple complaints and legal disputes.

Findings of Court:
The Consumer Fora found the developers deficient in service due to non-delivery of promised flats and upheld an award of ₹3,00,000/- compensation to each complainant, along with interest.

Issues: The primary issues were the definition of 'consumer' in relation to slum rehabilitation and jurisdictional claims raised under the Maharashtra Slum Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the slum dwellers were consumers and had valid claims against the developers; the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum was affirmed despite contentions to the contrary.

Result: Revision petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction to the case and initial facts. (Para 1)
2. petitioners’ reconsiderations of the appeals against prior orders. (Para 10 , 11)
3. petitioners' arguments against consumer categorization. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. court's insight aligning prior case law to present case. (Para 16 , 17)
5. final determination of consumer rights and contractor responsibilities. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. restating the obligations of the service provider under the consumer act. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
7. summary dismissal of revision petitions. (Para 25)

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 their promise and possession

Click Here to Read the rest of this document