Dedicated locality research platform
Dedicated locality research platform
Enter your email address and you will receive
a link to reset your password
The Supreme Court made a significant statement last week regarding the Consumer Protection Act of 2019,
emphasizing that the law's purpose is to promote consumerism in the country. The court warned against adopting a
technical interpretation of the Act's provisions that would harm consumers and undermine the objective of the
legislation. Justices J.K. Maheshwari and M.M. Sundresh of the bench expressed concerns about a "pedantic and
hyper-technical approach," asserting that it would damage the fundamental concept of consumerism.
The Supreme Court's remarks were made in response to appeals challenging a previous order issued by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) regarding the completion of a housing project. The bench
recognized the commendable objective of the Consumer Protection Act and highlighted the flexible procedure it
provides to consumers, enabling them to seek redress through various forums.
In this specific case, the appellant was an association of flat allottees registered under the Haryana Registration and
Regulation of Societies (HRRS) Act of 2012, while the respondent was a builder responsible for developing the
housing project. The appellant had approached the NCDRC, alleging that the builder had failed to meet the agreed-
upon timelines for constructing and completing the promised flats, and had also raised additional demands.
The bench noted that the builder had filed a complaint with the District Registrar of Societies, alleging that the
appellant association's bylaws did not conform to the HRRS Act. The state registrar of Haryana subsequently directed
the association to amend its bylaws within six months, warning that failure to comply would result in the cancellation
of the registration it had already obtained. The association made the necessary amendment, which was registered by
the Gurugram district registrar in November 2019.
However, the registrar later put the amendments on hold in June 2020, claiming that the six-month grace period had
expired. The registrar general of Haryana dismissed the association's appeal, affirming the order of the state registrar.
It is important to note that the appellant's registration was not cancelled.
The bench further mentioned that the orders issued by the state registrar and the registrar general of Haryana were
challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, along with a stay application. As of now, the matter is still
pending adjudication, with no interim order issued. The association informed the NCDRC about the pending writ
petition before the high court, and the commission adjourned the matter awaiting appropriate orders on the petition.
Seeking to set aside the NCDRC's order, the association approached the Supreme Court. The bench emphasized that
the complaints had already been registered and that the issue of registration and bylaws was irrelevant, particularly
considering the submission made by the association's counsel that individual allottees had filed affidavits. Adopting a
pedantic and hyper-technical approach, the court warned, would undermine the very essence of consumerism.
In light of the circumstances, the bench set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals to proceed. It directed
the national commission to expeditiously hear the matters on their merits. The bench also disposed of any pending
applications related to the case.
The decision by the Supreme Court reinforces the significance of the Consumer Protection Act in promoting consumer
rights and discouraging a rigid interpretation that would harm consumers. The court's stance highlights the need to
prioritize the interests of consumers in disputes and ensure an expeditious resolution.
Propscience is India’s dedicated property news portal. We cover the latest events, news, trends, deals, new launches and more.
All our services and tools are completely free of cost and available 24X7!
