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.

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA. MEMBER

1. Heard Mr. Nahar Singh, Advocate learned counsel for the Appellants and Ms.Vaishanavi, Authorised Representative for the Respondent.

2. This is an appeal against the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint holding that the transaction was entered into by the complainant for commercial purpose and hence he would not be eligible as a complainant within the meaning of Section 2 (1 )(d) of the CP Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complainant case, as pleaded in the consumer complaint before the State Commission, are that the complainants, being senior citizens and retired persons dependent upon pension and limited family income, were induced by the respondent, a real estate developer, to book a studio apartment in its project known as “Imperia Residency” situated at Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, on the representation that the project would be completed within the stipulated period and that the unit would generate an assured monthly rental income. Accordingly, the complainants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.05.2010 with the respondent for allotment of a 1 BHK Studio Apartment bearing No. C-413 admeasuring about 425 sq. ft. for a total consideration of ?11,94,300/-, pursuant to which the complainants made payments from time to time and by May 2012, as pleaded in the complaint, had paid a total sum of ?15,17,987/- towards the said unit. As per the said MoU, the complainant was to receive assured monthly return of ?11,943/- (at page 126), payable with effect from June 2010 until the date of occupation, which it appears the OP has paid.. However, the construction was to be completed by 30.06.2012 and that the complainants were thereafter to receive an assured rent of ?18,000/- per month, proposed through arrangements with Hotel Clarks (Page 53) but actually and finally offered through proposed arrangement with M/s Growmore Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Page 77), for which the respondent sought the complainants’ consent in April 2012. However, despite receipt of substantial amounts, the respondent failed to complete the construction of the project within the promised time i.e., by 30.06.2012, failed to' hand over possession of the said studio apartment, and also failed to arrange or pay the assured monthly rental income as promised, thereby causing continuous financial loss to the complainants who had invested their lifetime savings in the project. The complainant, in response to the demand letter from the OP dated 18.04.2012, demanding Rs. 323687/- and asking consent for lease arrangement with Growmore for lower-than-assured monthly lease rent of only Rs. 8500/-, paid the amount within two months and accepted the proposal and even waived the interest on unpaid assured returns. OP could, hovyever, neither complete the construction till the promised date of June-2012, nor paid or arranged the promised or even the reduced rental of Rs. 8500/- pm because the project itself did not progress as promised. The complainants approached the respondent through letters dated 02.04.2014 (page 82), emails dated 23.04.2014 and 29.05.2014, and legal notice dated 16.09.2015 demanding completion of construction, delivery of possession, and payment of assured returns, but the respondent avoided compliance on one pretext or another and adopted delaying tactics. The complainants, pleaded that the respondent’s acts amounted to gross deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, misrepresentation, and breach of contractual obligations, resulting in severe mental agony, harassment, financial hardship, and loss of livelihood su