Landowner entering builder agreement for construction and apartment sharing qualifies as "consumer" under Consumer Protection Act

SC held that a land-owner who enters into an agreement with a builder to construct and share apartments can be a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act and may file complaints against the builder as a service-provider. Labels like "joint venture" do not control; true nature is determined by contract terms, control and shared liability. A builder must obtain and deliver completion certificates and C/D forms and cannot discharge liability merely by applying for them; failure to secure or justify withholding certificates can attract compensation. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a landowner entering into a collaboration agreement with a builder is a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Whether a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable for the delivery of completion certificates and C&D Forms in relation to a building.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a landowner entering into a collaboration agreement with a builder is a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
The Supreme Court examined whether a landowner, who enters into a collaboration agreement with a builder for constructing an apartment building and sharing the constructed area, qualifies as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant (landowner) alleged that the builder made unauthorized deviations during construction, resulting in several deviation notices from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and failed to rectify the deviations, leading to the filing of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

The District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission had dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellant was not a 'consumer' and the agreement was in the nature of a joint venture. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this view. It noted that the agreement between the parties did not constitute a joint venture as there was no community of interest, shared control, or shared profits and losses between the landowner and the builder. The landowner had no say in the construction process, and the builder had exclusive control over the construction and sale of the builder's share of the building.

The Supreme Court held that the agreement was essentially for the construction of a house (ground floor) for the landowner, with the consideration being the transfer of an undivided share in the land to the builder and permission to construct and own additional floors. Therefore, the landowner was a 'consumer,' and the builder was a 'service-provider' under the Act. The Court concluded that the appellant's complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Whether a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable for the delivery of completion certificates and C&D Forms in relation to a building:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a complaint seeking the delivery of completion certificates and C&D Forms is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant contended that the builder's failure to secure and furnish the completion certificate and C&D Forms amounted to a deficiency in service, as the MCD had refused to issue these documents due to unauthorized deviations in construction.

The Court held that the builder was obligated to construct the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan and specifications and to secure the necessary completion certificate and C&D Forms from the MCD. The builder's failure to obtain these documents due to deviations in construction constituted a deficiency in service. The Court emphasized that the builder could not avoid responsibility by merely applying for the completion certificate; the builder had to ensure that the building complied with municipal and building laws to obtain the necessary approvals.

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's complaint seeking the delivery of completion certificates and C&D Forms was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court directed the District Forum to consider the matter on merits and dispose of it in accordance with the law within six months.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the National Commission, State Commission, and District Forum. The appellant's complaint was held to be maintainable, and the District Forum was directed to consider the matter on merits and dispose of it within six months. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant.

---