VASANT SHANKAR TORASKAR Vs. SHREEJI BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No.207 of 2003. The facts of the case, as seen from the record, are that there was an agreement between the Complainants on the one side and M/s. Virendra Tiwari and Chandershekhar Rane, on the other. In this agreement, executed on 26.11.1987, the first party i.e. the Toraskars, are described as the "vendors" and second party, M/s. Tiwari and Rane were described as "purchasers". Under the agreement, the plot in question was to be transferred to the purchasers free from all encumbrances for a price of Rs.1 lakh to be paid in the manner detailed in the agreement. The agreement also required the purchasers to provide the vendors free of cost three flats and a shop to be built on the site. All approvals required for the construction, as well as occupation certificate on completion, were required to be obtained by the purchasers. The agreement required the vendors to deliver all title deeds to the purchasers and to assist the purchasers in obtaining no objection certification from the competent authorities.

(2.) The builders (purchasers in the above mentioned agreement) took possession of the property and assigned the development rights to their sister concern M/s. Krishna Developers. The latter, in turn assigned the development rights in favour of the OP/Shreeji Builders. The three flats were not delivered to the original Complainants as per the agreement and hence, the consumer complaint.

(3.) The State Commission examined the contents of the agreement of 26.11.1987 in detail and came to the conclusion that the Complainants cannot be said to be "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It also held that the agreement between the parties is a fully commercial joint venture agreement with no element of hiring of service. The collaboration between the two parties required land to be provided by the Complainants for being commercially developed by the other party, at his own costs and investment. The State Commission held that there was no hiring of service involved in this transaction and accordingly dismissed the complaint. The Commission also reserved the liberty to the complainants to approach the proper Court for relief.