IMPORTANT POINT
Commercial projects cannot be subject-matter of consumer complaint.

Vinay Kumar, Member—The Consumer Complaint No.236 of 2012 has been filed by M/s. Richa & Company. As stated in para 2 therein the Complainant is a partnership Firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. The complaint is filed against M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. (formerly known as DLF Retail Developers Ltd. & DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd.)

2. The case of the Complainant is that in response to advertisements and media campaign of the respondent for sale of office/retail space in DLF Corporate Greens, Gurgaon, the Complainant made an application on 17.6.2008 for allotment of 24798 sq.ft. of office/retail space. In three cheques dated 17.6.2008, 26.6.2008 and 2.9.2008 a total of Rs.439.56 lakhs was paid to the OP, being 25% of the total sale consideration of Rs.1857.45 lakhs.

3. On 10.12.2008 the Complainant address a letter to the OP stating that they had come to know that 27.80 acres of land required for this project was under litigation, while at the time of depositing the money the Complainant was informed that there is no litigation/dispute over the land proposed for the project. Also the deposit from the Complainant was taken even before obtaining necessary licences/clearances, which was a violation of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and rules thereunder. Therefore, the complainant sought refund of the entire amount with 18% interest.

4. Details of correspondence produced on record by the complainant, show that the matter of refund remained in correspondence between the two parties and eventually on 25.1.2011 separate cancellation letters were issued by the OP. These letters conveyed that the allotment of property is cancelled, forfeiting a part of the amount. The letters also indicated that the balance amount received from the complainant would be refunded separately.

5. We have heard Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Advocate for the complainant. The main question that arises for our consideration is whether the transactions detailed above would fall within the meaning of the term ‘Commercial Purpose’ under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. By an amendment of this provision, which came into effect from 15.3.2003, persons purchasing goods or hiring services for a ‘commercial purpose’ have been excluded from the definition of the term ‘consumer’.

6. The term “commercial purpose” appears as an exclusion clause in the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d). Since cases of resale have been separately referred to in this clause, it becomes obvious that the words “commercial purpose” are intended to include any commercial activity, other than resale, where goods are purchased for being used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. The word “commercial” is defined as exchange of merchandise, especially on a large scale. In a commercial activity, generation of profit is the main aim.

7. Therefore, the National Commission had held in Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd.1 that—

“It is obvious that Parliament intended to restrict the benefits of the Act to ordinary consumers purchasing goods either for their own consumption or even for use in some small venture which they may have embarked upon in order to make a living as distinct from large scale manufacturing or processing activity carried on for profit. In order that exclusion clause should apply it is however necessary that there should be a close nexus between the transaction of purchase of goods and the large scale activity carried on for earning profit…….The purchase of the generating sets was thus clearly for enabling the appellant company to carry on its commercial activity of manufacturing edible oils on a large scale for purposes of trade. It was submitted before us on behalf of the appellant company that the generators were only intended as a “stand-by arrangement.”. In our opinion, even if this be so, it would not