# SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR

- **Citation:** [2020] 3 S.C.R. 824
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-02-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.1118 of 2016
- **Bench:** Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sobha-hibiscus-condominium-v-managing-director-m-s-sobha-developers-ltd-anr-34115
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.2(1)(d) and s.12(1) and its
Explanation - Consumer - Meaning of - Appellant is a statutory
body under the provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act,
1972 - It consisted of members of the apartments in a multi storey
building as per the declaration of opposite party under the 1972
Act - Appellant filed complaint before National Commission -
Complaint resisted on the ground that the appellant is not a consumer
within the meaning of Act, therefore, has no locus standi to file
complaint - National Commission rejected the complaint holding
that the appellant was not a recognised consumer association within
the meaning of s.12(1)(b) of the Act - Held : Conjoint reading of
the various relevant provisions of the 1972 Act and the Bye-laws of
the Appellant- Condominium showed that appellant came into
existence as per the mandatory provisions under the 1972 Act -
Explanation to s.12 of the Act makes it clear that, the recognised
consumer association as referred under s.12(1)(b) of the Act means
any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force - By applying
Explanation, the appellant cannot be said to be a voluntary
consumer association so as to maintain a complaint petition - A
voluntary consumer association is a body formed by a group of
persons coming together, of their own will and without any pressure
or influence from anyone and without being mandated by any other
provisions of law - Appellant which consists of members of flat
owners in a building, which has come into existence pursuant to a
declaration which is required to be made compulsorily under the
provisions of 1972 Act, cannot be said to be a voluntary association
- Further, it does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 824
824
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
825
defined under s.2(1)(d) of the Act -Karnataka Apartment Ownership
Act, 1972.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. To maintain a complaint under the provisions of
the Act, complainant must be either a 'consumer' within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act or it must fit into Section
12(1) of the Act. As per the Section 12(1)(a), a consumer to whom
such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered
or such service provided or agreed to be provided can file a
complaint. Under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act, any 'recognised consumer association' whether the
consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be
sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided
is a member of such association or not can file a complaint. As
per the Explanation to Section 12 of the Act, 'recognised
consumer association' means any voluntary consumer association
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law for
the time being in force. It is clear from the Explanation that only
a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 or any other law can maintain a complaint under Section
12(1)(b) of the Act. The Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act,
1972 is an Act of the State which is enacted with a view to provide
for the ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to
make such apartment heritable and transferable property and for
matters connected therewith. As per Section 13 of the 1972 Act,
Declarations, Deeds of Apartments and copies of floor plans are
required to be registered under provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908. The appellant body came into existence pursuant to
clause (8) of the Declaration. [Paras 7-9][828-F; 829 E-H; 830 AE]
2. A conjoint reading of the various relevant provisions of
the 1972 Act and the Bye-laws of the Condominium would show
that the appellant-body has come into existence as per the
mandatory provisions under the 1972 Act. It is an Act to provide
ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to make
such apartment heritable and transferable property. The
Explanation t

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUM
v.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS
LTD. & ANR
(Civil Appeal No.1118 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.2(1)(d) and s.12(1) and its
Explanation - Consumer - Meaning of - Appellant is a statutory
body under the provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act,
1972 - It consisted of members of the apartments in a multi storey
building as per the declaration of opposite party under the 1972
Act - Appellant filed complaint before National Commission -
Complaint resisted on the ground that the appellant is not a consumer
within the meaning of Act, therefore, has no locus standi to file
complaint - National Commission rejected the complaint holding
that the appellant was not a recognised consumer association within
the meaning of s.12(1)(b) of the Act - Held : Conjoint reading of
the various relevant provisions of the 1972 Act and the Bye-laws of
the Appellant- Condominium showed that appellant came into
existence as per the mandatory provisions under the 1972 Act -
Explanation to s.12 of the Act makes it clear that, the recognised
consumer association as referred under s.12(1)(b) of the Act means
any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force - By applying
Explanation, the appellant cannot be said to be a voluntary
consumer association so as to maintain a complaint petition - A
voluntary consumer association is a body formed by a group of
persons coming together, of their own will and without any pressure
or influence from anyone and without being mandated by any other
provisions of law - Appellant which consists of members of flat
owners in a building, which has come into existence pursuant to a
declaration which is required to be made compulsorily under the
provisions of 1972 Act, cannot be said to be a voluntary association
- Further, it does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 824
824
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
825
defined under s.2(1)(d) of the Act -Karnataka Apartment Ownership
Act, 1972.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. To maintain a complaint under the provisions of
the Act, complainant must be either a 'consumer' within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act or it must fit into Section
12(1) of the Act. As per the Section 12(1)(a), a consumer to whom
such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered
or such service provided or agreed to be provided can file a
complaint. Under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act, any 'recognised consumer association' whether the
consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be
sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided
is a member of such association or not can file a complaint. As
per the Explanation to Section 12 of the Act, 'recognised
consumer association' means any voluntary consumer association
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law for
the time being in force. It is clear from the Explanation that only
a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 or any other law can maintain a complaint under Section
12(1)(b) of the Act. The Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act,
1972 is an Act of the State which is enacted with a view to provide
for the ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to
make such apartment heritable and transferable property and for
matters connected therewith. As per Section 13 of the 1972 Act,
Declarations, Deeds of Apartments and copies of floor plans are
required to be registered under provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908. The appellant body came into existence pursuant to
clause (8) of the Declaration. [Paras 7-9][828-F; 829 E-H; 830 AE]
2. A conjoint reading of the various relevant provisions of
the 1972 Act and the Bye-laws of the Condominium would show
that the appellant-body has come into existence as per the
mandatory provisions under the 1972 Act. It is an Act to provide
ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to make
such apartment heritable and transferable property. The
Explanation to Section 12 of the Act makes it clear that, the
recognised consumer association as referred under Section
SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
12(1)(b) of the Act means any voluntary consumer association
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law for
the time being in force. By applying the said Explanation, the
appellant cannot be said to be a voluntary consumer association
so as to maintain a petition. Further, it will not fall within the
definition of 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the
Act. In essence, a voluntary consumer association will be a body
formed by a group of persons coming together, of their own will
and without any pressure or influence from anyone and without
being mandated by any other provisions of law. The appellant
association which consists of members of flat owners in a building,
which has come into existence pursuant to a declaration which is
required to be made compulsorily under the provisions of 1972
Act, cannot be said to be a voluntary association to maintain a
complaint under the provisions of the Act. [Para 9][830 G-H; 832
D-F]
Moulivakkam Trust Heights Flats Affected Buyers
Association etc. v. M/s. Prime Sristi Housing Pvt. Ltd.
& 29 Ors. Etc. 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 163 - relied
on.
Black's Law Dictionary IX Edn. - referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1118 of
2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2015 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Complaint
No. 153 of 2010.
 Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Ashwani Kumar, S.P. Kamrah,
Ms. Iti Sharma, Ms. Peeha Verma, Puneet Sharma, Rajesh Mahale,
Shivendra Dwivedi, Syed Faizan Ali, Ms. Tejaswini Misra, Rachit Batra,
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Rohit Vats, Daya Krishan Sharma, Anoop Kr.
Srivastav, Shivkumar Gavalkar, R.N. Pareek, Vipin Kumar Saxena,
Shailesh Madiyal, Sudhanshu Prakash, Kartik Anand, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
827
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. This civil appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act'), is filed by the complainant, aggrieved by
the order dated 13.05.2015, passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in Consumer Complaint
No.153 of 2010, rejecting the complaint filed by the appellant on the
ground that, the appellant-Condominium has no locus standi to file the
complaint since neither it is a 'consumer' nor it is a 'recognised consumer
association' within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act.
2. The appellant/complainant is a statutory body under provisions
of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (for short, '1972 Act').
It consists of members, who are the owners of the apartments in a
multi- storey building, namely, "Sobha Hibiscus" situated in Amballipur
Village, Varthur Hobli, of South Bangalore Taluk in Karnataka. The
appellant-Condominium has come into existence pursuant to a declaration
made by the opposite party under the provisions of 1972 Act. When the
appellant has filed complaint claiming certain reliefs before the NCDRC,
the same is resisted by the opposite party, by taking a preliminary objection
that the complainant is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act,
therefore, has no locus standi to file the complaint. The NCDRC, by
referring to relevant provisions of the Act, has recorded a finding that
the complainant is not a 'recognised consumer association' within the
meaning of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act.
3. We have heard Sri Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Sri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent-opposite parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended
that as per the provisions of the Act, any association registered under
Companies Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force can
maintain a complaint. It is submitted that all members of the appellantCondominium are members who have purchased flats in the building
named as "Sobha Hibiscus" and it is formed with a view to represent
the grievances of its members before the authorities and the tribunal, as
such, there is no reason or justification in rejecting the complaint by the
NCDRC on the ground that it has no locus standi to maintain the
complaint. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied on a
SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Full Bench judgment of the NCDRC, New Delhi in Consumer Case No.
560 of 2014 and batch titled Moulivakkam Trust Heights Flats Affected
Buyers Association etc. v. M/s. Prime Sristi Housing Pvt. Ltd. & 29
Ors. etc.1
5. On the other hand, Sri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents, by taking us to relevant provisions
of the 1972 Act and Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has submitted that
the appellant cannot be said to be a voluntary consumer association, as
per the provisions of the Act and it is also not a 'consumer' within the
meaning of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant
is a body which has come into existence as per the declaration made by
the opposite party, as required under the 1972 Act. It is submitted that
as much as it is a body which has come into existence as per the mandatory
provisions of the 1972 Act, as such, it cannot be said to be a voluntary
consumer association. Further it is submitted that as the appellant will
not fit into the definition of 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d)
of the Act, complaint as filed, is not maintainable and there are no grounds
to interfere with the impugned order passed by the NCDRC as the same
is in accordance with law.
6. Having heard learned counsels on both sides, we have perused
the impugned order and other material placed on record. After considering
the submissions made by the learned counsels on both sides with reference
to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the relevant
provisions of the 1972 Act, we are of the view that there is no merit in
this appeal so as to interfere with the impugned order, for the following
reasons.
7. To maintain a complaint under the provisions of the Act
complainant must be either a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section
2(1)(d) of the Act or it must fit into Section 12(1) of the Act. The word
'consumer' is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act which reads as
under :
"2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
.... .... .... ....
(d) "consumer" means any person who,-
1 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 163
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
(i)
buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or
promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any
system of deferred payment and includes any user of such
goods other than the person who buys such goods for
consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised,
or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is
made with the approval of such person, but does not include
a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any
commercial purpose; or
(ii)
hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has
been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or
under any system of deferred payment and includes any
beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires
or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised,
or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment, when such services are availed of with
the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include
a person who avails of such services for any commercial
purpose;
Explanation,-For the purposes of this clause, "commercial
purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought
and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for
the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of selfemployment;"
8. Section 12 of the Act deals with the manner in which complaint
shall be made. As per the Section 12(1)(a), a consumer to whom such
goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such
service provided or agreed to be provided can file a complaint. Under
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act any 'recognised
consumer association' whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or
delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed
to be provided is a member of such association or not can file a complaint.
As per the Explanation to Section 12 of the Act, 'recognised consumer
association' means any voluntary consumer association registered under
the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force. It
is clear from the Explanation that only a voluntary consumer association
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law can maintain
a complaint under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. So as to consider whether
SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
the appellant is a voluntary consumer association or not, it is necessary
to refer to relevant provisions of the 1972 Act. The Karnataka Apartment
Ownership Act, 1972 is an Act of the State which is enacted with a view
to provide for the ownership of an individual apartment in a building and
to make such apartment heritable and transferable property and for
matters connected therewith. The appellant body has come into existence
pursuant to a declaration made by the opposite party in terms of the
1972 Act. Section 3(j) of the 1972 Act defines 'declaration' as under:
"3. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-
.... .... ....
(j) 'Declaration' means the instrument by which the property is
submitted to the provisions of this Act, as hereinafter provided,
and such Declaration as from time to time may be lawfully
amended:"
As per Section 13 of the 1972 Act, Declarations, Deeds of
Apartments and copies of floor plans are required to be registered under
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. A copy of the Deed of Declaration
dated 22.05.2006 is placed on record and the same is a declaration under
provisions of the said Act by the opposite party. The name of appellant
body as "Sobha Hibiscus Condominium" has come into existence pursuant
to clause (8) of the Declaration. The bye-laws framed by the appellantCondominium are also placed on record. Bye-law No.5 of the Bye-laws
deals with the Members of Association which reads as under :
"5) MEMBERS OF ASSOCIATION:
5.1) All persons who have purchased constructed Apartments in
the "Sobha Hibiscus" shall execute respective declarations under
Section 5(ii) of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972
submitting their Apartments to the provisions of the Act. All
persons who become the owner of the Apartment, shall acquire
10 shares of the "Sobha Hibiscus Condominium" by paying
Rs.1000/- and on acquisition, shall become the members of the
"Sobha Hibiscus Condominium" and be bound by the Deed of
Declaration and Exhibits thereto."
9. On a conjoint reading of the various relevant provisions of the
1972 Act and the Bye-laws of the Condominium referred above, we are
of the view that the appellant-body has come into existence as per the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
mandatory provisions under the 1972 Act. It is clear from the objects of
the said Act, that it is an Act to provide ownership of an individual
apartment in a building and to make such apartment heritable and
transferable property. In view of the mandatory provisions of the 1972
Act the appellant cannot be said to be a voluntary registered association
for the purpose of filing a complaint before the competent authority under
the provisions of the Act. The Explanation to Section 12 of the Act
makes it clear that, the recognised consumer association as referred
under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act means any voluntary consumer
association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law
for the time being in force. By applying the said Explanation, the appellant
cannot be said to be a voluntary consumer association so as to maintain
a petition. Further, it will not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as
defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The term 'voluntary' has been
defined in Black's Law Dictionary IX Edn. as under :
"voluntary, (14c) 1. Done by design or intention voluntary act. 2.
Unconstrained by interference; not impelled by outside influence
voluntary statement. 3. Without valuable consideration or legal
obligation; gratuitous voluntary gift. 4. Having merely nominal
consideration voluntary deed. Voluntariness".
The term 'voluntary' as defined in Oxford Dictionary reads as
under :
"2. Of an action: performed or done of one's own will, impulse, or
choice; not constrained, promoted, or suggested by another. Also
more widely, left to choice, not required or imposed, optional. Of
an oath, a confession, etc: voluntarily made or given; not imposed
or prompted by a promise or threat. Of a conveyance, a disposition
etc.: made without money or other consideration being given or
promised in return. Growing wild or naturally; or spontaneous
growth. Volunteer
3. .... ....
4.a. Assumed or adopted by free choice; freely chosen or
undertaken; (of work) unpaid b. Brought about by one's own choice
or deliberate action; self-inflicted, self-induced. C. Of a society,
association, etc.: entered into a free choice. Also consisting of
volunteers.
SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
5. Done by deliberate intent; designed, intentional
6. Of the will: free, unforced, unconstrained.
7. Of a person: acting from personal choice or impulse, willingly,
or spontaneously, in a specified capacity. Also, endowed with the
faculty of willing. B. Serving as a volunteer soldier. Also, composed
of such volunteers.
8. Freely or spontaneously bestowed or made; contributed from
personal choice or impulse or from generous or charitable motives.
9. .... ....
10. Of an institution, organisation, etc.: maintained or supported
solely or largely by voluntary contributions. Also more widely,
existing through voluntary support, not established by statute; in
the UK, (of a school) built by a voluntary institution but maintained
by a local education authority. B. of, pertaining to, or advocating
voluntarism in respect of Church, schools, etc."..
In essence, a voluntary consumer association will be a body formed
by a group of persons coming together, of their own will and without any
pressure or influence from anyone and without being mandated by any
other provisions of law. The appellant association which consists of
members of flat owners in a building, which has come into existence
pursuant to a declaration which is required to be made compulsorily
under the provisions of 1972 Act, cannot be said to be a voluntary
association to maintain a complaint under the provisions of the Act.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also relied
on the very same judgment in the case of Moulivakkam Trust Heights
Flats Affected Buyers Association etc.1 In the aforesaid decision, a Full
Bench of the National Commission has taken a view that even a
Residents' Welfare Association, if registered under a statute will qualify
as a consumer association under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act
provided, it qualifies as a voluntary association.
11. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the reasons recorded
in the impugned order by the NCDRC, we do not find any merit in this
appeal so as to interfere with the same. The civil appeal is accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs.
Devika Gujral
Appeal dismissed.