Summary
The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of a condominium’s consumer complaint for lack of standing. The body, constituted through the compulsory declaration and membership framework under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, was not a voluntary consumer association within Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It also did not itself qualify as a consumer. Statutory registration alone did not satisfy the requirement of voluntariness.
Issues
- Whether the condominium constituted under the apartment-ownership framework qualified as a consumer or voluntary recognised consumer association entitled to complain.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The condominium itself did not fall within the statutory definition of consumer. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- Section 3(j), Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972The statutory declaration and the condominium’s accompanying framework informed the finding that its formation was compulsory. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Held
- A complainant must be a consumer or come within a category authorised by Section 12(1). For an association invoking Section 12(1)(b), the Explanation requires a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act or another law. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- This condominium arose under the mandatory provisions of the apartment-ownership legislation and the developer’s declaration, with membership attached to apartment ownership. It therefore lacked the voluntariness required for association standing and was not itself a consumer. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Registration under a statute does not alone disqualify a residents’ association; the cited National Commission decision recognised standing where the registered association also qualifies as voluntary. The present body did not meet that condition. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; National Commission’s rejection of the condominium’s complaint for lack of standing upheld.