Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sobha Hibiscus Condominium, is a statutory body formed under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, comprising owners of apartments in a multi-storey building. It filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking certain reliefs against the respondent builder. The NCDRC rejected the complaint on the ground that the appellant lacked locus standi, as it was neither a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor a 'recognised consumer association' under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. It noted that the appellant came into existence pursuant to a declaration made by the opposite party under the 1972 Act, and its membership is mandatory for apartment owners. The Court held that the appellant is not a voluntary consumer association because it was created by statutory compulsion, not by the free choice of its members. The Explanation to Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act defines 'recognised consumer association' as a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law. Since the appellant is not voluntary, it does not qualify. Additionally, the appellant is not a 'consumer' as defined in Section 2(1)(d) because it does not buy goods or hire services for consideration. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the NCDRC's order.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Locus Standi - Recognised Consumer Association - Section 12(1)(b) read with Explanation, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The appellant, a condominium formed under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, is not a voluntary consumer association as it came into existence by mandatory statutory provisions, not by free choice of its members. Hence, it cannot maintain a complaint under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. (Paras 7-9) B) Consumer Law - Definition of Consumer - Section 2(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The appellant condominium does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as it is not a person who buys goods or hires services for consideration. Therefore, it cannot file a complaint under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. (Paras 7, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a condominium association formed under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 is a 'consumer' or a 'recognised consumer association' under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus has locus standi to file a complaint before the NCDRC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant condominium is neither a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) nor a 'recognised consumer association' under Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus has no locus standi to file the complaint. The impugned order of the NCDRC was affirmed.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Consumer
- Recognised consumer association
- Voluntary consumer association
- Statutory body
- Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act
- 1972
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
