Dominating Position Of Builders Vis-A-Vis Home Buyer In Quest For Shelter: Bombay High Court Dismisses Builder’s Plea Against Relief Granted To Homebuyer By NCDRC
The Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the NCDRC, which was challenged by the builder.
While remarking on the dominant position of a builder vis-a-vis a homebuyer in a quest for shelter, the Bombay High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the builder (Petitioner) seeking to set aside the relief granted to the homebuyer by the NCDRC.
The Court upheld the decision of the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (NCDRC), which was challenged by the builder (Petitioner) against the Order of the State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (State Commission). The dispute involved an alleged deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act), arising from a delay in handing over a flat to the Respondent, an independent homebuyer.
A Division Bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna held, “From the legislative scheme and framework of the Act, the intent is to encourage consumerism in our Country as also echoed by the Supreme Court. A situation cannot be countenanced where a technical plea espoused would militate against the very purpose and object behind the enactment. One needs to be mindful of the object behind the legislation that an untrained, unwary consumer because of unequal bargaining power ought not to be deprived of his legal rights.”
Advocate Pranav Nair appeared for the Petitioners.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners estimated a 24-month time frame for project completion, which was not met. Consequently, the Respondent filed a complaint under the Act before the State Commission.
The State Commission partly allowed the Respondent's complaint by directing the Petitioners to refund the Respondent’s amount deposited and to additionally pay Rs. 1 Lakh for mental agony and Rs. 20k for litigation charges. The Petitioners appealed this order to the NCDRC, with a delay of 1132 days. The NCDRC dismissed this Appeal.
Court’s Observations
The High Court upheld the decision of the NCDRC stating, “We find that there is no explanation, much less justification by the petitioner to overcome the delay in filing the appeal before the National Commission within the time period of 30 days as stipulated under section 51 of the Act, as rightly observed by the National Commission in the impugned judgment.”
“Further, except for the bald allegation that the delay is not at all attributable to the petitioner and that the respondent has abused the process of law, is bereft of any material placed on record to even remotely make good such serious accusations which need to be sufficiently proved,” the Court remarked.
The Bench pointed out, “The petitioners took a calculated risk adopting wait and watch approach. The appeal before National Commission was filed by the petitioner when there was no alternative upon failure of settlement talks, with a clear intent to thwart the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “On the foregoing discussions and taking a holistic view of the proceedings, we are certainly not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the National Commission dated 19 August 2024.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Samarth Constructions & Anr. v. Pushpa Chandrakant Mate (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:15723-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Pranav Nair and Akshata Katara
