Back
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N. V. ANJARIA
Vinit Bahri – Appellant
Versus
MGF Developers Ltd. – Respondent
आपका तर्क यह हो सकता है कि, जब तक यह साबित न हो कि खरीदी गई अचल संपत्ति का मुख्य उद्देश्य व्यावसायिक लाभ प्राप्ति या वाणिज्यिक गतिविधि था, तब तक वह उपभोक्ता के रूप में ही माना जाएगा। खरीदार का मुख्य उद्देश्य यदि व्यक्तिगत उपयोग या जीवनयापन के लिए है, तो वह उपभोक्ता की परिभाषा में आता है। (!) (!) इसके अतिरिक्त, यह भी तर्क दिया जा सकता है कि केवल संपत्ति खरीदने का कार्य अपने आप में वाणिज्यिक उद्देश्य नहीं माना जा सकता, यदि खरीदार का मुख्य उद्देश्य व्यक्तिगत जीवनयापन है, न कि लाभ कमाना। (!) (!) इसलिए, जब तक यह स्पष्ट नहीं होता कि खरीद का उद्देश्य वाणिज्यिक था, तब तक उपभोक्ता का दर्जा नहीं छोड़ा जा सकता।
JUDGMENT
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1) This Appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 11.05.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.74/2017, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [For short, ‘the NCDRC’] at New Delhi whereby, the NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint preferred by the appellants.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts stand thus: the appellants filed a complaint before the NCDRC for seeking a direction to the respondents to pay (i) Rs. 1,59,89,994/- being 18% interest; (ii) Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation due to the change in location of TowerC; (iv) Rs.35,61,494/- as excess amount realized towards fixtures and fitting; (v) Rs.2,50,000/- as the litigation costs; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper.
3) The backdrop of the above complaint is that the respondents launched a group housing project in the name of ‘The Villas’ at Village Sahraul, Sector-25, Gurgaon, in the year 2005. The appellants in March 2005, deposited Rs.15,00,000/- as the booking amount, and, on 02.09.2005, they were allotted Unit No.VP-C/802 located on the ground floor of Tower-C wi
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.
(1) Commercial Purpose – When there is assertion in complaint filed before Consumer Court or Commission that such goods are purchased for earning livelihood, such complaint cannot be nipped at the bu....
Company which has purchased commercial space for its office is a commercial complex held not a consumer.
Consumer – Borrower of a project loan does not fall within definition of ‘Consumer’ under provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Basic Amenities - In the present case, the Opposite Party Authority had completely failed to provide basic amenities like approach roads on the sides of the allotted Plots, which is a clear case of d....
Purchase designation as 'consumer' hinges on intent of use; ownership for profit does not automatically exclude consumer protection.
The court affirmed that housing construction agreements fall under the Consumer Protection Act, establishing that both parties were bound by the definitions of 'consumer' and 'service'.
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
