Consumer Protection Act | 'Law Must Ensure That Unwary & Untrained Consumers Are Not Deprived Of Their Legal Rights': Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday (April 4) emphasized on the purpose of Consumer Protection Act stating that the intent and framework of the legislation is to ensure that the "untrained, unwary" consumers are not deprived of their legal rights because of the 'unequal' bargaining power.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna made the observation while dismissing the appeal filed by a developer, who challenged an order of the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (NCDRC) passed in August 2024.

By the impugned order, the NCRDC had dismissed the appeal filed by the developer challenging the July 2018 judgment of the State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (SCDRC), which had ordered the developer to pay an amount of Rs 11 lakhs for failing to hand over the possession of the flat to a purchaser within 24 months. The SCDRC had also ordered the developer to pay Rs 1 lakh for mental agony and Rs 20,000 for litigation costs. 

While considering the appeal, the bench noted that the matters falling under the Consumer Protection Act deal with a range of consumers from individuals to co-operative societies, home buyers, flat purchasers and such others who approach the specialised fora created under the Act, to redress their grievances with a hope of speedy resolution of long pending disputes.

"The object and purpose of this statute, makes it evident that it is a social welfare legislation where protection of consumer interest is paramount. From the legislative scheme and framework of the Act, the intent is to encourage consumerism in our Country as also echoed by the Supreme Court. A situation cannot be countenanced where a technical plea espoused would militate against the very purpose and object behind the enactment. One needs to be mindful of the object behind the legislation that an untrained, unwary consumer because of unequal bargaining power ought not to be deprived of his legal rights," the bench said in its order. 

The bench noted that one of the major reasons for which the NCRDC dismissed the developer's appeal was because the developer challenged the July 2018 order much beyond the limitation period i.e. after a delay of 1132 days. The developer attributed the delay to Covid-19 pandemic, change in partnership of the firm, health condition of one of the developer's husband.

However, 'unimpressed', the bench opined that the NCDRC correctly appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the appeal.

"The National Commission was circumspect when dealing with parties like the petitioner who was in a dominating position being developers/builders vis-a-vis the respondent who is a individual home buyer, to ensure that the latter in the quest for shelter over his head was not driven into unwarranted litigation, much less prolonged litigation, at the behest of the former. The National Commission has correctly taken into account such perspective in adjudicating the proceedings and in passing the impugned order, which in our opinion surely, ought not to be disturbed," the bench said, while dismissing the plea. 

Appearance:

Advocates Pranav Nair and Akshata Katara instructed by Asahi Legal appeared for the Petitioner. 

Case Title: Samarth Constructions vs Pushpa Mate (Writ Petition 18556 of 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 133

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment