The Supreme Court has directed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to decide afresh on a petition filed by flat owners against the undelivered promises made by the developers.
The Division Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Dutta told NCDRC that it was not directing the consumer forum to decide afresh on the aspect of compensation, since the appellants had failed to give detailed particulars, but to consider the aspect of undelivered promises made by the developers to the flat owners.
The Apex Court further observed that there was no basis for the petitioners to claim compensation because they had also been on the ‘wrong side’ of the law by taking possession of their respective flats without the completion certificate.
The Bench ruled that complaints by consumers should not be rejected by consumer forums on the ground that the consumers knew what they were purchasing.
It said under the Consumer Protection Act, the jurisdiction of consumer forums was often invoked after the consumer made a purchase and hence, if the complaints were rejected on the ground that the consumers ‘knew’ what they were purchasing”, the object and purpose of the enactment would stand defeated.
The Apex Court ordered that any deficiency detected post-purchase opened up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the consumer fora.
The Bench said it failed to understand what NCDRC meant when it observed that the appellants ‘ought’ to have known what they were purchasing. The top court of the country further castigated the consumer forum for its reasoning, terming the same as ‘indefensible’.
The order was passed on a petition challenging an order of NCDRC, which had rejected the complaint of certain flat owners. The appellants had alleged that flat developers had defaulted on several promises made on provision of flat amenities.
The petitioners sought compensation from the flat developers on the grounds of alleged unfair trade practices.
The appellants further claimed that the flat developers had failed to secure a completion certificate from the municipal authorities. It sought directions from NCDRC to the flat developers to obtain such a certificate and also set right the various defects in construction.
The NCDRC, while noting that the flat developers had shown a very casual approach on various aspects and were guilty of unfair trade practices, dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellants had occupied the flat even though a completion certificate had not been obtained.
The consumer forum observed that both parties had violated the law and denied relief to the flat owners, stating that the consumers ‘ought’ to have known what they were purchasing.
This observation of NCDRC was criticised by the Apex Court, which said the forum’s order defied logic, was perfunctory on certain aspects and had let off the flat developers in a manner contrary to law.