In Brief
The Supreme Court set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order allowing a consumer complaint against a housing finance company. The respondent, a flat seller, sued the finance company for failing to pay Rs.13,20,000/- allegedly owed under a tripartite agreement. The Court held that the respondent was not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because he had no direct contractual relationship with the finance company. The loan was extended only to the flat's buyer (the borrower), not to the respondent. Without contractual privity, no deficiency of service could be established. The Court also noted the complaint was filed nearly 10 years after the cause of action arose without explanation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.