2010 (8) TMI 1157 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Threshold jurisdiction of consumer fora.
2. Maintainability of consumer cases.
3. Definition and scope of "consumer" and "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. Applicability of the Consumer Protection Act vis-`a-vis the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
5. Jurisdiction of civil courts vs. consumer fora.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Threshold jurisdiction of consumer fora:
The petitioner-company challenged the jurisdiction of consumer fora in entertaining consumer disputes presented by the respondents. The court examined whether the disputes fell within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Maintainability of consumer cases:
The petitioner argued that the disputes related to non-registration of plots and other reliefs sought by the complainants should be addressed in civil courts as they do not constitute "service" under Section 2(o) of the Act. The court held that the consumer fora have jurisdiction to entertain these complaints as the disputes involve deficiency in service related to the development and registration of plots.

3. Definition and scope of "consumer" and "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
The court referred to the definitions of "consumer" and "service" under Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) of the Act. It emphasized that the Act aims to protect the economic interests of consumers, including those who purchase plots with the promise of development and infrastructure. The court cited the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, which included housing construction and development activities within the scope of "service."

4. Applicability of the Consumer Protection Act vis-`a-vis the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
The petitioner contended that the disputes should be governed by the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Contract Act, and thus, the consumer fora lacked jurisdiction. The court disagreed, stating that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy and does not derogate from other laws. The court emphasized that consumers have the choice to approach either the consumer fora or civil courts.

5. Jurisdiction of civil courts vs. consumer fora:
The court held that the consumer fora have concurrent jurisdiction with civil courts in cases involving consumer disputes. It reiterated that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act allows consumers to seek remedies under the Act in addition to other available legal remedies. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments supporting the view that consumer fora can entertain disputes involving deficiency in service, even if they also fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the consumer fora have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the respondents, as the disputes involve deficiency in service related to the development and registration of plots. The writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the consumer fora were dismissed. The court emphasized that consumers have the right to choose their remedy and are not restricted to seeking relief only in civil courts.