Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Vinit Bahri And Another – Appellants
Versus
M/s MGF Developers Ltd. And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 2023
Decided On : 04-02-2026
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer complaint – Commercial purpose – Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice – Onus of proving that appellants fall within exclusion clause of Section 2(1)(d) of 1986 Act rests upon respondents, and respondents have failed to discharge this onus on a preponderance of probabilities – Determinative question is whether dominant intention or dominant purpose behind purchasing flat was to facilitate profit generation through commercial activity, and whether there exists close and direct nexus between purchase and such profit-generating activity – Respondents have not placed any cogent material on record to establish such nexus – Mere factum of leasing out flat does not, by itself, demonstrate that appellants purchased property with dominant purpose of engaging in commercial activity – 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 is proved that dominant purpose behind such purchase was commercial in nature – In absence of such proof, appellants cannot be excluded from definition of ‘consumer’ under 1986 Act – Impugned Judgment passed by NCDRC set aside and Consumer Complaint restored to its original number to file of NCDRC.(Paras 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal assails impugned judgment dated 11.05.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.74/2017, passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi whereby, NCDRC dismissed consumer complaint preferred by the appellants.
The pivotal question which falls for considerations is whether NCDRC was right in dismissing complaint filed by the appellants on the premise that they do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ for leasing out the subject property for commercial purposes, falling within the exclusion clause of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Findings of Court:
NCDRC shall proceed to decide Consumer Complaint on merits and in accordance with law.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
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 with super built area of 3590 square feet.
4) Thereafter, on 12.06.2006, a Flat Buyer’s Agreement was executed in favour of the appellants and Clause 9.1 of the Agreement stipulates that the possession of the flat shall be handed over within 36 months from the date of the Agreement, subject to a grace period of 90 days for obtaining the occupation certificate. It is the appellants’ case that the due date of possession expired on 11.09.2009 and that the respondents have unilaterally changed the layout plan of Tower-C without informing the buyers. The respondents in their meeting held on 23.04.2009 have admitted the factum of change in the layout plan of Tower-C. The appellants also alleged that, on 06.09.2009, the respondents raised a demand for Rs.10,82,000/- and, subsequently, on multiple occasions, the respondents demanded for payments and the appellants have obliged to the same under protest and have taken possession of the flat on 08.01.2015. The respondents vide letter dated 02.01.2015, invited objections against the change of layout plan and the appellants filed their objections against the same. However, Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, issued occupation certificate on 14.08.2015.
5) On 10.01.2017, the appellants filed the subject complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The appellants challenged the demand of Rs.30,81,894/- under various heads of EEDC, IDC, Service Tax, etc. and also Rs.4,80,000/- towards deficiency in providing promised fixtures in the flat.
6) Before the NCDRC, respondent No.1 filed a written reply wherein it was stated that the appellants have already been paid/adjusted a delay compensation of Rs.12,10,237/- as per clause 9.7 of the Agreement, and the same has been accepted unconditionally. It is also the case of respondent No.1 that the total area of the flat has been increased by 271.08 square feet, and the appellants were liable to pay for subject increase in the area. It is also stated that all the demands raised by the respondents were according to the Flat Buyer’s Agreement. Significantly, it is alleged by respondent No.1 that the appellants have purchased the said flat for commercial purposes and after taking over the possession, the flat has been let out to one Shri Sunil Raman since March 2015. A lease deed to this effect has been executed on 03.03.2016. Ergo, it is the case of respondent No.1 that the appellants are not consumers and that the appellants’ complaint should be dismissed. Respondent No.2 also filed a separate reply wherein it was stated that the said project ‘The Villas’ was handed over to respondent No.1 through settlement deed dated 19.12.2013 and that respondent No.2 is absolved of all liabilities as respondent No.1 took all the liabilities towards the project th
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
