Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Chief Manager, Central Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. The question which arises in these two appeals for our determination is that whether the borrower of a project loan, falls within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’).
2. These statutory appeals arise from the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘NCDRC’) in Consumer Complaint No. 23/2021. The appellant before us in Civil Appeal No. 7483 of 2023 is the Chief Manager, Central Bank of India and has filed the appeal under Section 23 of the Act, assailing the finding arrived at by the NCDRC holding that there was a deficiency in service on part of the appellant and thus, it is liable to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1, which is M/s Ad Bureau Pvt. Ltd., (a company engaged in the business of branding, consulting & advertising).
3. On the other hand, Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 20192 of 2024 has been filed by M/s Ad Bureau Pvt. Ltd., challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the NCDRC, on the ground that the same has been awarded inadequately. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the part
Consumer – Borrower of a project loan does not fall within definition of ‘Consumer’ under provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
When a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within meaning of ‘consumer’ as defined in C.P. Act, he will have to establish that services were availed exclusively for the purposes....
(1) Consumer Complaint – Maintainability – What needs to be seen is dominant intention or dominant purpose of transaction – Status of purchaser or recipient of goods or services, whether it is an ind....
Consumer complaint – Commercial purpose – Mere act of purchasing immovable property, even multiple units, cannot ipso facto attract exclusion clause of Section 2(1)(d) of 1986 Act unless and until it....
Housing Construction – Acquisition of property for commercial venture business – Complainant not “Consumer” – No deficiency in service.
A purchaser's intent to earn rental income does not automatically classify the transaction as 'commercial purpose' under the Consumer Protection Act, allowing them to maintain status as a consumer.
A company purchasing property for business purposes does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Bank extending financial facility for commercial venture & business to business transaction with profit generation as dominant purpose – Consumer Forum is not available to Complainant.
Dominant purpose of import of high tech machine is to earn profit – Complainant is not consumer & Complaint not maintainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
