Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Bansal, filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against M/s Vipul Ltd. (formerly Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd.) and another respondent, alleging deficiency of service for failing to execute agreements in respect of four flats booked in the project 'Orchid Petals' in Sector 49, Gurgaon. The appellant sought execution of buyers' agreements/sale deeds for flats numbered 1103, 1203, 903 in Tower 15 and flat 1402 in Tower 21, along with compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for harassment and costs. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appellant was not a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, contending that booking four flats indicated an intention for resale and commercial gain. The appellant countered that the flats were intended for residence of his family members, not for resale, and that he had the financial capacity to pay. The NCDRC dismissed the complaint, holding that booking four flats clearly showed the purpose was commercial resale, and that the appellant had not disclosed the names of family members or obtained their signatures as co-applicants. The Supreme Court, in appeal, found that the NCDRC had proceeded on an ipse dixit (bare assertion) without any evidence. The Court held that the fact of booking four flats alone cannot lead to a conclusive presumption of non-consumer status; the issue must be decided after pleadings are complete and parties have had an opportunity to adduce evidence. The Court also noted that the appellant's failure to mention family members' names was a factor to be weighed in the balance, but not decisive at the preliminary stage. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCDRC's order, and restored Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 2006 to the NCDRC for fresh adjudication after evidence. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits, including whether the appellant is a consumer. Additionally, the Court permitted the first respondent, who had been proceeded ex-parte, to file a written statement within four weeks and contest the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Definition of Consumer - Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The mere fact that an individual has booked four flats does not by itself lead to a conclusive presumption that the purchase was for commercial resale and not for personal use; the issue must be decided on evidence after pleadings are complete and parties have had an opportunity to adduce evidence. (Paras 4-5) B) Consumer Protection - Preliminary Objection - Maintainability - The NCDRC erred in deciding the maintainability of the complaint on an ipse dixit (bare assertion) without any material evidence; the finding that the appellant was not a consumer was based on assumption and surmise, and the complaint was restored for fresh adjudication after evidence. (Paras 4-5) C) Consumer Protection - Opportunity to Adduce Evidence - Natural Justice - The NCDRC's decision to reject the complaint at the threshold without allowing the parties to lead evidence on the purpose of purchase violated principles of natural justice; the Supreme Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the NCDRC was justified in dismissing the consumer complaint on the preliminary ground that the appellant was not a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, solely on the basis that he had booked four flats, without giving an opportunity to adduce evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the NCDRC dated 5 August 2013, and restored Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 2006 to the file of the NCDRC for fresh adjudication after evidence. The Court permitted the first respondent to file a written statement within four weeks and contest the proceedings. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 2(1)(d) - Definition of Consumer
- Consumer Complaint - Maintainability
- Burden of Proof - Consumer Status
- Preliminary Objection - Decided on Surmise
- Natural Justice - Opportunity to Adduce Evidence
