A company purchasing property for business purposes does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 , against the order dated 28.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission7), in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 62/2013 inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the State Commission.

2. While the Appellant was Complainant before the State Commission, the Respondents were Opposite Parties before the State Commission. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 20.09.2017.Appellant filed their Written Arguments/Synopsis on 29.01.2024 and respondent has filed their Written Arguments/Synopsis on 28.11.2025. For the sake of convenience, parties will also be reflected to as they were averred by the state commission.

3. The state commission vide order dated 28.03.2017 dismissed the complainant's complaint while passing following orders:-DCBA

13. The principle of taw, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is, therefore, held that since the Complainant Company does not fall within the definition of a consumer, the Consumer Complaint is not maintainable.

14. In the result this complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. The complainant Company shall, 2 of 12 however, be at liberty, to resort to any other remedy, which may be available to it, for redressai of its grievance, under the provisions of law.

4. Brief facts of the case as presented by the complainant and as emerged from the First Appeal, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that: -DCBA

4.1 The Complainant, a Private Limited Company, entered into an Agreement dated 05.10.2009 with the Opposite Parties for the purchase of an immovable property, specifically Apartment No. 2800 on the 28th floor of the building "BELVEDERE," admeasuring 3282 sq. ft., inclusive of three car parking spaces and appurtenant common and specific amenities. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.2,42,16,516/-, payable in stipulated instalments, with a contractual completion date for construction by 30.06.2011.

4.2 The Complainant avers that Opposite Party No. 1 subsequently delivered a draft Agreement for Sale, which was a unilaterally drafted, standard-form printed document, in January 2010. Upon perusal, the Complainant alleges that he discovered the inclusion of onerous and unilateral penal clauses, including provisions for forfeiture and the levy of interest. The Complainant expressed its unwillingness to execute the Agreement unless these alleged adverse clauses were modified or deleted. Notwithstanding this express objection and the absence of a mutually executed contract, Opposite Party No. 1 commenced accepting substantial payments from the Complainant, based on a mutual understanding that payments would be linked to the progress of construction.

4.3 Vide a communication dated 29.03.2011, the Complainant inquired about the project's status and the anticipated timeline for completion to 3 of 12GFEDCBA align its payment schedule with the actual construction progress. The Complainant contends that agents of the Opposite Parties gave assurances that the construction would proceed irrespective of the receipt of payments from flat purchasers. Subsequently, by a letter dated 22.07.2011, Opposite Party No. 1 admitted to delays in completion, attributing them circumstances such as shortages of material and labour, and projected a revised completion date of February 2012.

4.4 Despite this delay attributable to the