BUNGA DANIEL BABU versus MIS SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

BUNGA DANIEL BABU versus MIS SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

Appellant-landowner who is entitled to a share of constructed area under builder’s agreement, does not participate in construction business, and is neither partner nor co-adventurer, falls within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; matter remitted for fresh adjudication treating appellant as consumer.

Parties
Appellant: Bunga Daniel Babu; Respondent: M/S Sri Vasudeva Constructions & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Consumer Definition Under Consumer Protection Act, Builder Agreements, Joint Venture Characterisation, Delayed Construction, Deficiency in Service
Consumer Protection Consumer Definition Under Consumer Protection Act Builder Agreements Joint Venture Characterisation Delayed Construction Deficiency in Service

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bunga Daniel Babu

Appellant

M/S Sri Vasudeva Constructions & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant-landowner is a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  2. 2 Whether agreement between landowner and builder constitutes a joint venture excluding consumer rights
  3. 3 Whether deficiency in service is established

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant-landowner who is entitled to a share of constructed area under builder’s agreement, does not participate in construction business, and is neither partner nor co-adventurer, falls within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; matter remitted for fresh adjudication treating appellant as consumer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgments and orders of National Commission and State Commission set aside
  • Matter remitted to State Commission to re-adjudicate treating appellant as consumer