Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A. P. Sahi, President and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Varun Ahuja and Ors. – Complainants
versus
M3M India Private
Limited and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.139 of 2023
Decided on 23.9.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 2(6), 2(7), 2(21), 2(42) – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d)(i) – “Goods” – ”Service” – ”Consumer” – Complainants are not “Consumers” as their entire acquisition of property is for commercial purpose as understood under provisions of Consumer Protection Act – Deficiency in service of housing construction – Not proved – Transaction did not terminate with conclusion of constructions & was rather followed by its leasing out for earning profits through rent – Object of acquiring commercial units is for commercial purpose – Lease agreements filed by OP clearly recite letting out of all premises in question to commercial entities on lease rent – Declaration by complainants that they have acquired this for their personal use or otherwise does not seem to be correct declaration made & suppression of material facts brought on record by OPs disentitles complainants from any relief – Disclosure of multiple properties having been acquired was absolutely necessary & this default on part of petitioners on behalf of complainants is also established – Complainants are not “Consumers” as their entire acquisition of property is for commercial purpose as understood under provisions of Consumer Protection Act.(Paras 31, 32, 33, 34,
50, 51, 54, 55, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 67 and 68)
Result: Complaint accordingly dismissed.
ORDER
IA/3361&3362/2024
A.P. Sahi, President.—This IA/3362/2024 has been moved by the Opposite Party seeking dismissal of the Complainant on the ground that the Complainants are not consumers, and the complaint is time barred and therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed. However, the main thrust of the argument is that the Complainants have purchased their respective multiple commercial units which are exclusively for commercial purposes without any element of self-employment or for earning their livelihood or occupation. The acquisitions are pure investments for profit generation. In fact all the Complainants have leased out their respective units and are enjoying rental income and therefore the details, the evidence of the lease deeds and other relevant documents demonstrate that the units have been purchased solely for commercial purpose and consequently all the Complainants do not qualify as consumers within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Learned Counsel urged that keeping in view the provisions of Section 2(6) and 2(7) read with Section 2(42), the purpose of the purchase of the units is clearly commercial with no element of exclusively earning livelihood through self-employment. Hence in view of the judgments referred to hereinafter, the facts as brought on record together with the additional affidavit filed in two volumes on 08.07.2024 through IA/14037/2024 clearly substantiate the allegations made in this application and hence the complaints deserve to be dismissed.
2. It may be mentioned that IA/3361/2024 has also been filed by the Opposite Party praying that the Complainants be called upon to file all such documents of all the lease deeds executed by all the 12 Complainants in respect of the commercial units which according to the Opposite Party has been intentionally concealed. The prayer is that the said documents would demonstrate that all the Complainants are speculative investors who have purchased the goods and availed the services from the Opposite Party No.1 for commercial purpose. This has been clearly stated in paragraph 2 of the said application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party while pressing the arguments as well as the written submission filed on 22.08.2024 has relied on the following judgments to substantiate his submissions.
“1. Gurupyara Bhatnagar Vs. M/s Mvl Credit Holding and Leasing Ltd & Ors. CC No.186 of 2022.
2. Aradhna Dayal V. Emaar Mgf Land Limited. CC No.1181 Of 2015
3. Sujeet Jain V. DB Realty Limited & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 353
4. M/S. Grand Venezia Buyers Association V. M/S. Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Pvt. Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1644
5. Balbir Singh Randhawa V. Dlf Universal Limited & Anr. 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1158
6. Ashok Thapar V. Supreme Indosaigon Associates & Anr. CC No.31 OF 2008
7. Cheema Engineering Services V. Rajan Singh (1997) 1 SCC 131
8. Laxmi Engineering Work V. P.S.G. Industrial Institute MANU/SC/0271/1995
9. Synco Texttiles Pvt. Ltd. V. Greaves Cotton And Pvt. Ltd. 1990 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3
10. Akhilesh Kumar Naithani & Anr. V. M3M India Private Limited. 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 728"
4. It is submitted that the Complainants have filed their reply and according to the arguments advanced by them, the contention raised on behalf of the Opposite Parties are unfounded and cannot stand the test of scrutiny laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments.
5. He has then invited the attention of the Bench to the agreements on the record of the complaint as also the documents that have been filed in two volumes as an additional affidavit through IA/14037/2024. While advancing his submissions learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has referred to the chart at internal page 3 of IA/3362/2024 which is extracted hereinunder:
| C. No. | Name | Units | Brand Leased Out |
| 1 & 2 | Varun Ahuja and Sameer Suneja | SB/R/GL/09/001 SB/R/GL/01/011 SB/R/GL/01/010 | FLY: First Love Yourself Lounge & Bar Axis Bank Ltd. Ax |
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.
Company which has purchased commercial space for its office is a commercial complex held not a consumer.
Purchase designation as 'consumer' hinges on intent of use; ownership for profit does not automatically exclude consumer protection.
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....
(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....
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....
(1) Purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment, has been excluded from the purview of commercial purpose as such purchase of commercial goods for earning livelihood by means of self-e....
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....
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
