Disposing of the appeal the supreme court held that the Complaints by consumers should not be rejected by consumer forums on the ground that the consumers knew what they were purchasing. “Under the Consumer Protection Act, the jurisdiction of consumer forums is often invoked after the consumer makes a purchase. 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, the division bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta held recently. 

Sinha & Ors. versus M/s R.N.R. Enterprise rep. by its Proprietor/Chairman, Kolkata & ors) under section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 1986 calls in question the order dated 21st August, 2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, wherein the NCDRC has dismissed the consumer complaint lodged by the appellants, the Court stated, "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 conduct of the respondents, the NCDRC recorded in the impugned order, was far too casual and on the face of it, the respondents are guilty of “unfair trade practice” within the meaning of section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. 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”. NCDRC, in our opinion, might have missed to appreciate the present day realities of life. Now-a-days, flat owners seldom purchase flats with liquid cash. Flats are purchased on the basis of finances being advanced by banks and other financial institutions. Once a flat is booked and the prospective flat owner enters into an agreement for loan, installments fall due to be paid to clear the debt irrespective of whether the flat is ready for being delivered possession. The usual delays that are associated with construction activities result in undue anxiety, stress, and harassment for which many a prospective flat owner, it is common knowledge, even without the project/flat being wholly complete is left with no other option but to take possession.”

Whether, upon taking possession, a flat owner forfeits his/her right to claim such services which had been promised but are not provided resulting in deficiency in services is a question that the NCDRC ought to have adverted to. 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 Court said criticizing the approach of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the matter. The apex court remanded the matter to only with a view to secure adherence to the promises that the respondents had made in the brochure and/or advertisement, as the case may be, and thereby cover up deficiency in service, if any, as well as the mandatory statutory provisions.

For detailed judgment click the link DEBASHIS SINHA & ORS. Vs M/S R.N.R. ENTERPRISE REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR/CHAIRMAN,KOLKATA & ORS.(CIVIL APPEAL NO.3343 OF 2020)