In Brief
A landowner entered into a development agreement with a builder for construction of a multi-storied residential complex, with ownership to be shared in a 40:60 ratio. When construction was delayed and defects alleged, the landowner filed a consumer complaint. The Consumer Commissions held the landowner was not a 'consumer' as this was a joint venture. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the agreement was not a true joint venture because the landowner had no control over construction or business management—only entitlement to a constructed area. The Court reaffirmed that such arrangements constitute a service contract, making the landowner a consumer protected under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.