Citicorp Finance (India) Limited Vs Snehasis Nanda (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court held that as there was no privity of contract between the concerned parties therein, no ‘deficiency’ would arise and the action (complaint) would not be maintainable before the concerned Consumer Forum.
Facts- The present appeal impugns the Final Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2023 [2023 SCC Online NCDRC 19] in Consumer Complaint No.919 of 2018 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to refund Rs.13,20,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and pay Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost.
Conclusion- In the specific factual setting, the respondent, having no privity of contract with the appellant, cannot be termed a ‘consumer’ under the Act. This alone was sufficient to dismiss the complaint. In Indian Oil Corporation v Consumer Protection Council, Kerala, (1994) 1 SCC 397, it was held that as there was no privity of contract between the concerned parties therein, no ‘deficiency’ would arise and the action (complaint) would not be maintainable before the concerned Consumer Forum.
Held that as vivid from Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v Aftab Singh, (2019) 12 SCC 751 and M Hemalatha Devi, even in a consumer dispute under the Act, or for that matter, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, arbitration, if provided for under the relevant agreement/ document, can be opted for/resorted to, however, at the exclusive choice of the ‘consumer’ As the appellant is not a ‘consumer’ in terms of the Act and the existence of the Tripartite Agreement is doubtful, we need not dwell further hereon. On an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with a survey of the precedents, we find that the Impugned Order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, in view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs, the Impugned Order is set aside.
