UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VISAKHA ENTERPRISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants were the complainants before the State Commission, where they had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellants, who are the owners of certain piece of land, entered into a 'Development Agreement' with the respondent on certain terms and conditions as incorporated in the said 'Development Agreement'. Certain discrepancies were found with the flats delivered to the appellants, hence a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint as they did not find any discrepancies / objections filed by the complainant. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length on the point whether the complainant could be said to be a 'consumer' within the meaning of word 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was the case of the learned Counsel for the appellant that under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this is an additional remedy available to the appellant / complainant. We are afraid we do not share this perception of the learned Counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that before getting into the purview of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, one has to qualify himself to fall within the definition of the 'Consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. When we go through the agreement, it is clearly stated in para 1 of the Agreement that it was the respondent who was to build four floors on the stilt, 'at his own cost'. In view of this, we are of the view- that in no way, the appellant/complainant could be said to have hired the services of the respondent developer/builder, as per definition of 'Consumer' laid down under Section 2(1)(d) of the CPA. The appellant had not hired the services of the respondent for construction of a building in the ordinary sense. In fact the arrangement was sharing the number of flats constructed on the said land. This Commission had occasion to deal with a case of similar nature in the case of Rameshwaran & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Banerjee & Ors., 2005 4 CPJ 53, and held the complainant not to be a consumer, in view of which we are unable to hold the appellant in this case a 'consumer'.