NCLAT: Can’t Set Aside Liquidation Order u/s 33 IBC When 3rd Party has Taken Possession of Property  ||  NCLAT: Unless Amendment Application Filed, Authority Can’t Suo Motu Amend Date of Default  ||  Delhi HC Directs Removal of 'Kindpan' Trademark in Petition Filed by ‘Mankind’  ||  J&K HC: Limitation for Challenging Award Starts after Signed Copy is Received by Party  ||  Delhi HC: ‘High Speed’ Not Sufficient to Conclude Driver Acted in Rash and Negligent Manner  ||  Allahabad HC: Huge Difference between Executing a Particular Document and Being a Witness  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t Consider Co-Opted Members of Bar Council as Separate Class from Elected Members  ||  J&K HC: Govt. Failing to Communicate Rejection of Detenue’s Representation in Time Vitiates Order  ||  SC: Electricity Act Empowers State Commissions to Regulate Open Access Within their Respective States  ||  SC: Limitation Begins from Date of Registration of Sale Deed that Constitutes Constructive Notice    

Bunga Daniel babu v. Vasudeva Constructions and ors. - (Supreme Court) (22 Jul 2016)

Not precluded as ‘consumer’ even if outcome commercial

Consumer

Unless a party approaching the consumer disputes redressal forums is a partner or a co-adventurer in a business from which dispute arises, it remains a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Disputes Act 1986.

In the instant case, the appellant owned several plots in order to develop which it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the respondent; respondent would construct a multi-storied building, and proceeds from the sale of the apartments would be shared proportionally between the parties.

Subsequently, construction took three years longer than was envisaged in the MoU and appellant approached the consumer dispute redressal forum claiming additional compensation from the respondent. In its defence, respondent claimed that since the transaction entered between them was of a commercial nature, appellant was not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Supreme Court, in assessing whether the appellant could be considered a consumer, examined the joint venture agreement between the parties. It noted that the MoU was not in support of the respondent as the appellant had neither any say nor control over construction and did not participate in respondent’s business.

It was therefore a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The matter was remitted to the State Dispute Redressal Commission for re-adjudication.

Relevant : Punjab University v. Unit Trust of India MANU/SC/0599/2014 Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association MANU/SC/0296/1979 Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Tags : CONSUMER   PROTECTION   COMMERCIAL   JOINT VENTURE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved