NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7577 OF 2005

Sujit Kumar Banerjee … Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Rameshwaran & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

This appeal by special leave by the land-owner challenges the

rejection of his complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

(‘the Act’ for short) against the builder, as not maintainable.

2. Complaint No.21/2002 filed by the appellant before the State

Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  Jharkhand  on 2.8.2002

was allowed by the State Commission by order dated 15.11.2002 with

a direction to the respondents (builder) to pay Rs.11,03,787/- to the

appellant with costs. The appeal filed by the respondents before the

1

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was

allowed  on  4.7.2005.  The  National  Commission,  following  its

decision  in  Faqir  Chand  Gulati  v.  M/s.  Uppal  Agencies  Pvt.  Ltd.,

(Revision  Petition  No.1878  of  2000  dated  3.2.2004)  held  that  the

appellant  is  not  a  consumer  and  therefore  the  complaint  was  not

maintainable. The complainant has challenged the said order in this

appeal.  

3. The appeal against the decision of the National Commission in

Faqir Chand Gulati (supra) and this appeal were heard together. We

have rendered  a separate  decision  today in  Faqir  Chand  Gulati  v.

M/s. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. – (C.A. No.3302 of 2005), allowing the

appeal and holding the complaint maintainable.

4. Applying  the  tests  laid  down  by  us  in  Faqir  Chand  Gulati

(supra), we find that the agreement between the parties in this case is

not a joint venture agreement but an agreement for construction of a

residential  building  and  delivery  of  an  agreed  percentage  of  the

constructed  area  to  the  landowners.  In  fact,  the  agreement

[Article  IX(1)]  clearly  states  that  it  is  not  a  joint  venture.

2

Consequently,  the  appellant  is  a  consumer  and  respondents  are

‘service providers’ and the complaint of the appellant is maintainable.

5. As the National Commission has not dealt with the matter on

merits but has disposed of the matter on a preliminary point, we allow

this appeal, set aside the order of the National Commission and remit

the matter to the National Commission for fresh disposal on merits, in

accordance with law.        

………………………….J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; …………………………J. July 10, 2008. (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)  

3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7577 OF 2005

Sujit Kumar Banerjee … Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Rameshwaran & Ors. … Respondents

Dear Brother,

Draft judgment in the abovesaid matter is being sent herewith

for favour of consideration.

With respectful regards,

……………………….J. (R V Raveendran) 29.6.2008

Hon. Mr. Justice L S Panta :

4