Bunga Daniel Babu Vs. M/s Sri Vasudeva Constructions
|
Head Note
The Consumer Protection Act,1986 - Section 2 (1)
Consumer - Commercial purpose - Joint venture - Definition under - Agreement for construction and sharing flats - Held, commercial purpose is required to be interpreted considering the facts and circumstances of each case - The National Commission has affirmed the order passed by the State Commission on the ground that the complaint is not a consumer as his purpose is to sell flats and has already sold four flats - The whole approach is erroneous - What is required to be scrutinised whether there is any joint venture agreement between the appellant and the respondent - The MOU that was entered into between the parties even remotely does not indicate that it is a joint venture - The appellant is neither a partner nor a co-adventurer - He has no say or control over the construction - He does not participate in the business - He is only entitled to, as per the MOU, a certain constructed area - The extent of area does not make a difference - Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the appellant is a consumer under the Act.
Topic(s)-Consumer Protection - Definition under - Commercial purpose - Joint venture