In a crucial decision, the Bombay High Court on April 4, 2025, underlined the fundamental objective of the Consumer Protection Act. The Court observed that the legislation is designed to safeguard the rights of “untrained” and “unwary” consumers, especially those dealing with entities that have greater bargaining power such as builders and developers.
The judgment came while the division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna was hearing a writ petition filed by Samarth Constructions, a developer who challenged an order issued by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in August 2024. The NCDRC had upheld a previous order by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) from July 2018, which directed the developer to compensate homebuyer Pushpa Mate for failing to deliver possession of a flat within the promised timeframe of 24 months.
Read Also:- Hansika Motwani Moves Bombay High Court Seeking Quashing of FIR in Section 498A Case
The SCDRC had ordered the developer to pay ₹11 lakh as compensation for the delay, an additional ₹1 lakh for mental harassment, and ₹20,000 for litigation expenses. This decision was later challenged by Samarth Constructions at the NCDRC, which was dismissed due to an inordinate delay of 1132 days in filing the appeal. The developer tried to justify the delay citing reasons such as the COVID-19 pandemic, a change in firm partnership, and the health condition of one partner’s spouse.
However, the NCDRC found these reasons insufficient and held that the delay could not be condoned. The Bombay High Court agreed with this finding and dismissed the writ petition filed by Samarth Constructions.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Hears NIA's Opposition to Anand Teltumbde's Foreign Travel Request
The Court emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act is a social welfare legislation, and its interpretation should favor consumers rather than being restricted by procedural loopholes. The bench further remarked that the appellate authority had properly examined the case and correctly concluded that the developer’s actions amounted to an abuse of legal process intended to delay justice for the consumer.
In its detailed order, the Bombay High Court highlighted that the National Commission (NCDRC) rightly took a consumer-centric view, especially considering that developers often enjoy a dominant position in transactions involving common homebuyers.
Advocates Pranav Nair and Akshata Katara, instructed by Asahi Legal, appeared for the petitioner (Samarth Constructions). The case was registered under Writ Petition No. 18556 of 2024.
This judgment sets a strong precedent for protecting consumer rights in India, reinforcing that the judicial system must remain vigilant and sensitive towards individuals who approach consumer forums seeking timely justice.
Advocates Pranav Nair and Akshata Katara instructed by Asahi Legal appeared for the Petitioner.
Case Title: Samarth Constructions vs Pushpa Mate (Writ Petition 18556 of 2024)
