JAINA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner before us is a builder and respondent No. 5, is a consumer who agreed to take a flat from the petitioner builder. Since he was aggrieved by the services of the builder he filed a petition before the State Commission (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) seeking damages and die State Commission allowed the Consumer's complaint with costs and directed the builder to refund the amount of Rs.69,340.00 deposited by the comnplainant, with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit of instalment as shown in Annexure 'A' till the date of the order and further to pay an amount of Rs.10,000.00 to him. Future interest was also allowed @ 15% per annum besides costs, by order dated 21.8.1991. Feeling aggrieved the builder took the matter in appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Chairman with two members of the Commission ordered the dismissal of the appeal since they did not find any fault with the order of the State Commission and allowed costs to the consumer. But the third member did not agree with the decision of the Chairman and two members and ordered that the appeal beallowed. The decision of the majority prevailed. Still feeling aggrieved the builder has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In the writ petition.challenge is made to the impugned order on merits, as well as, on the ground that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if it is extended to immoveable properties, it would be ultra vires the Constitution of India.

(3.) Adverting to the second point first, the matter is not res integra and is covered against the petitioner by a decision of the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta- 1993(6) JUDGMENT TODAY 307. the relevant passage is as follows :-