Hello sir , if a case is being entertained by consumer court , and the builder disputes are being filed at national consumer forum then there is no question that a allotte of a flat cannot be treated as a CONSUMER .. It is advisable to file a appeal in Supreme Court agianst the impugned order passed by the national consumer forum ..you can contact me in person for legal representation in the Supreme Court .. Thank you

1) you should appeal to the SC against decision of NC

2) however on merits you have a weak case

3) if wife wanted to use commercial premises to earn her livelihood then she would fall under definition of consumer

4) if it is for use of husband then she does not fall under definition of consumer

Dear Madam,

Definitely, it contains “substantial question of law” to be decided by the Apex Court. Wife and Husband are two sides one coin. They cannot be separated on many issues. The finding of National Consumer Forum is not rationale. You will win and it will be helpful to many others as law will be enlarged on this point. Best of luck.

Dear Sir, you should challenge the order of national forum in supreme court for the reason being 1st wife is owner of the property so she is definitely a consumer secondly a family livelihood from a property cannot be held as husband only livelihood as for example if wife uses property or gives on rent the income received or husband using property for clinic in the relation of husband wife and family it cannot be said to be distinguished income in relation to aforesaid income from property when husband has paid the property price and wife is owner.

Also earning livelihood has no relation to consumer definition as wife has taken particular service from builder now builder has delayed it she and her family suffered losses now there is no question of livelihood in deciding the definition of consumer this order if it as you mention in your question then is erroneous same should be challenged before SC.

Now in your case this Question of law and interpretation of definition of consumer has arrived so you should definitely got to Supreme Court.

Definition of consumer for your reference

(d) “consumer” means any person who,—

(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) 12 [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 12 [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 13 [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

The property is purchased in the name of wife. Wife is the consumer. Builder has failed to handover the possession in time. It is a good case to be challenged in SC.

The Consumer Protection Act excludes from its purview goods and services for commercial purposes.

The only exception to the above rule is when goods are purchased or services are availed for earning livelihood.

Just because the property in question was purchased in the name of wife, didn't imply that the husband could not have used this property to set up his clinic. Under the benami laws of the country, a property purchases in the name of wife or the unmarried property is not a benami property. I think that the National Commission has wrongly overturned the judgement of the State Commission on the only ground that the property was in the name of the wife and not in that of the husband. Take your chance and challenge this in the Supreme Court.

Stake a challenge against the national forum verdict in the supreme court.

Hi, it is irrelevant to consider whether the property is residential or commercial .. You can file a appeal in Supreme Court .. You can contact me in person for further legal assistance

I know property is commercial but in defination of consumer which can be contested before supreme court first of fall she is consumer in meaning of defination secondly her husband's income can be her livelihood as an family income has to be contested and said property has to be out of embit of commercial use.

Though hard but you have a substantial question of law to be decided SC may decide in favour you should take a chance.

Hello,

You should file an appeal to SC as the property was purchased on your wife's name though it is purchased for commercial purpose.

Hope this helps.

Regards

wife may not be granted any reliefs by SC as it was not purchased for earning her livelihood

Dear Sir,

Yes Sir, You are correct.

Article 21 reads as:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”

According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.” Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as “the procedural magna carta protective of life and liberty.

This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws.

Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1) Right to life

2) Right to personal liberty

The Article prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a procedure established by law .Article 21 corresponds to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, Article 40(4) of the Constitution of Eire 1937, and Article XXXI of the Constitution of Japan, 1946.

Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).

Yes, you must approach the Supreme Court as the presumption of Natuonal Forum is incorrect to the extent as the property was in wife’s name and husband wants to run the clinic.

As the first thing is that it is the commercial property whosoever purchased it but with the intention of using it as commercial one.

People do buy property on female names as it attracts less stamp duty.

Hi,

The version explained by national commission is liable to be challenged and set aside by supreme court. The wife's livelihood depends on husband's earnings if she is a housewife.

This is a fit case to prefer an appeal before supreme court.

The consumer meaning is that the buyer of the property from the builder.

It may not be necessary to go beyond the definition of consumer in this situation.

It is immaterial whether her husband is setting up a clinic or not, the builder failed in his duty towards the consumer, hence he is liable to pay the compensation along with the refund.

The matter may be taken up with supreme court with an appeal.

What is the legal entity of husband and wife under india's law.

It is again their own money and for that matter a husband cannot be separated from his wife on this matter, it is a benefit of them jointly since they are married couple and living together.

Husband and wife are not separate entities when the wife is dependant on husband.

The question of livlihood arises as said property is commercial.

This cannot be disputed however since the buyer is entitled for the services of the builder she is entitled to aproach consumer forum for deficiency of service by the service provider.

You can go to Supreme court as any beneficiary of the said service comes under purview of Consumer