Introduction:

In a notable judgment, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, highlighting its role in safeguarding “untrained, unwary” consumers from being disadvantaged due to unequal bargaining power. The division bench, comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna, dismissed an appeal by a developer challenging the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission’s (NCDRC) August 2024 order.

Case Background:

The dispute originated when a developer failed to deliver possession of a flat to a purchaser within the agreed 24-month period. In July 2018, the State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (SCDRC) directed the developer to compensate the purchaser with ₹11 lakhs for the delay, along with ₹1 lakh for mental anguish and ₹20,000 for litigation expenses. The developer’s subsequent appeal to the NCDRC was dismissed in August 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Bombay High Court.

Developer’s Contentions:

The developer presented several reasons for the 1,132-day delay in filing the appeal:

• COVID-19 Pandemic: The global health crisis disrupted normal operations, impacting the firm’s ability to manage legal proceedings.
• Change in Partnership: Internal restructuring and changes in the firm’s partnership diverted attention from the appeal process.
• Health Issues: The deteriorating health of a partner’s spouse further contributed to the delay.

Court’s Observations:

The High Court was unpersuaded by the developer’s justifications. It emphasized the Consumer Protection Act’s intent to provide a platform for consumers, ranging from individuals to cooperative societies, to seek redressal against powerful entities. The court stated:

“The object and purpose of this statute make it evident that it is a social welfare legislation where protection of consumer interest is paramount.”

The bench further noted that allowing technical pleas to undermine the Act’s purpose would be detrimental to consumer interests. It highlighted the unequal bargaining power between developers and individual homebuyers, emphasizing the need to prevent consumers from being subjected to prolonged and unwarranted litigation.

Judgment:

Upholding the NCDRC’s decision, the Bombay High Court dismissed the developer’s appeal. The court found no merit in the reasons provided for the substantial delay and underscored the importance of adhering to the Act’s provisions to protect consumer rights.