Complaints under Consumer Protection Act should not be rejected on the ground that consumer knew what he was purchasing: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that complaints by consumers should not be rejected by consumer forums on the ground that the consumers knew what they were purchasing [Debashis Sinha and Others v. M/S RNR Enterprise represented by its Proprietor/Chairman, Kolkata and Others]..The Court observed that under the Consumer Protection Act, the jurisdiction of consumer forums is often invoked after the consumer makes a purchase and hence, if the complaints are rejected by consumer forums on the ground that the consumers “knew what they were purchasing", the object and purpose of the enactment would stand defeated. ."More often than not, the jurisdiction of the consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act is invoked post purchase. If complaints were to be spurned on the specious ground that the consumers knew what they were purchasing, the object and purpose of the enactment would be defeated. Any deficiency detected post-purchase opens up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the consumer fora," the Court's order stated. .In holding so, a division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta criticized the approach of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in a case, wherein it had rejected a consumer complaint on the ground that the complainants 'ought to have known what they were purchasing'."We have failed to comprehend as to what the NCDRC meant when it observed that the appellants 'ought to have known what they were purchasing' ... The reasoning of the NCDRC is indefensible," the Court observed..The Court was hearing an appeal against an order of the NCDRC which had rejected the complaint of certain flat owners (appellants). The appellants alleged that the flat developers had defaulted on several promises made on provision of flat amenities. For these alleged unfair trade practices, the appellants had sought compensation from the flat developers. .The appellants also claimed that the flat developers had failed to secure a completion certificate from the municipal authorities. Therefore, the NCDRC was urged to direct the flat developers to obtain such certificate and also set right the various "constructional defects"..The NCDRC found that the flat developers had shown a very casual approach on various aspects and that they were guilty of unfair trade practices. All the same, the appellants' complaint was dismissed. Among other grounds, the NCDRC pointed out that the appellants had occupied the flat even though a completion certificate had not been obtained. .Hence, opining that both parties have violated the law, the NCDRC denied relief to the flat owners and observed that they "ought to have known what they were purchasing.".The Supreme Court, however, criticised the NCDRC's approach, noting that the forum's order defied logic, was perfunctory on certain aspects and had let off the flat developers in a manner contrary to law."Once the NCDRC arrived at a finding that the respondents were casual in their approach and had even resorted to unfair trade practice, it was its obligation to consider the appellants’ grievance objectively and upon application of mind and thereafter give its reasoned decision. If at all, the appellants had not forfeited any right by registration of the sale deeds and if indeed the respondents were remiss in providing any of the facilities/amenities as promised in the brochure/advertisement, it was the duty of the NCDRC to set things right," the Supreme Court observed..Referring to the aspect of the flats being occupied by the appellants even before the completion certificate was obtained, the Court opined that the NCDRC appeared to have failed to appreciate present day realities. .Flat owners may experience undue stress and anxiety and harassment on account of delays in flat development, it was noted. It is common knowledge that flat owners may have no other option but to take possession of their flats even without the flat being wholly complete, the bench observed. .The bench went on to highlight that even under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, which applied to the appellants' flat, it was the obligation of the person intending to erect a building to apply for completion certificate. It is no part of the flat owner’s duty to apply for a completion certificate, the Court noted. .The Supreme Court ultimately remitted the matter back to the NCDRC to consider the aspect of undelivered promises made by the developers to the flat owners. .The Court explained that it is not directing the consumer forum to decide afresh on the aspect of compensation, since the appellants had failed to give detailed particulars or provide a basis for claiming such compensation, and since "they have also been on the wrong side of the law by taking possession of their respective flats without the completion certificate."Since the matter was almost fifteen years old, the Supreme Court also asked the NCDRC to consider disposing of the matter within one year..[Read Order]