A purchaser of commercial property claiming to be a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act must explicitly prove the transaction was for self-employment; investments in commercial units for profit or assured returns lack the character of a 'consumer' transaction as they fall under commercial purposes.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(7) - Definition of ‘consumer’ - Commercial purpose - Exclusion - Purchase of commercial units in a commercial complex with an expectation of assured return implies a commercial investment rather than an activity for exclusively earning personal livelihood via self-employment - The onus lies on the claimant to prove that such purchase was for self-employment. (Paras 13, 18, 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellants initiated a consumer complaint against the respondent-developer for failing to deliver commercial units booked for a restaurant business. The appellants sought a refund, compensation for mental harassment, and damages for unfair trade practices. The District Commission dismissed the complaint in limine, holding that the appellants did not fall within the definition of a 'consumer' because the units were commercial. The appellants filed an appeal contending that the dismissal at the threshold without allowing them to lead evidence on their self-employment status violated principles of natural justice.

Findings of Court:
The State Commission concurred with the lower forum, observing that the nature of the transaction—involving the purchase of commercial units coupled with an expectation of an assured monthly return—is inherently commercial. The appellants failed to substantiate that the units were intended exclusively for earning their livelihood through self-employment, nor did they provide evidence of necessary expertise or operational scale to support such a claim.

Issues: Whether the appellants qualify as 'consumers' under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and whether the District Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint at the threshold due to the commercial nature of the transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: To fall under the exclusion of 'commercial purpose' within the definition of a consumer, a person must establish that the services or goods were availed exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment (as per Shrikant G. Mantri v. PNB). Given the lack of foundational evidence regarding self-employment and the commercial nature of the investment, the appellants are excluded from the definition.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to the rejection of the complaint at the district level. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. discussion on the definition of a consumer under section 2(7) of the act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. application of the onus of proof regarding livelihood and self-employment exceptions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. final confirmation of the dismissal of multiple similar appeals. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.969 of 2025

Date of Institution : 19.12.2025

Date of Reserve : 12.03.2026

Date of Decision : 16.04.2026

1. Nitin Kanwar aged about 53 years son of Satish Kumar R/o House No.165, Sector 21, Panchkula-134113.

(Aadhar No.9956 8965 0407) (Mobile No.94685-57770)

2. Priyanka Kanwar aged about 43 years W/o Nitin Kanwar R/o House No.165, Sector 21, Panchkula-134113.

(Aadhar No.4054 9971 7108) (Mobile No.94685-57770)

….Appellants/Complainants

Versus

M/s Chandigarh City Centre Developers, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Punjab-140603.

…..Respondent/Opposite party

First Appeal No.970 of 2025

Date of Institution : 19.12.2025

Date of Reserve : 12.03.2026

Date of Decision : 16.04.2026

1. Nitin Kanwar aged about 53 years son of Satish Kumar R/o House No.165, Sector 21, Panchkula-134113.

(Aadhar No.9956 8965 0407) (Mobile No.94685-57770)

2. Priyanka Kanwar aged about 43 years W/o Nitin Kanwar R/o House No.165, Sector 21, Panchkula-134113.

(Aadhar No.4054 9971 7108) (Mobile No.94685-57770)

….Appellants/Complainants

Versus

M/s Chandigarh City Centre Developers, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Punjab-140603.

…..Respondent/Opposite party

First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 30.10.2025 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

Quorum:-

Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member

Present (F.A.No.969 of 2025):-

For the appellants : Sh.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate

HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This order will dispose of the above noted two appeals, which have been preferred by the same appellants/complainants against the orders dated 30.10.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the complaint filed by them, under the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’), was dismissed.

2. Facts are taken from F.A. No.969 of 2025. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Summarily the facts of the case are that complainant booked the unit for starting his restaurant by obtaining the loan in order to purchase the unit. The opposite party who formed the said project in the name and style of “Chandigarh Citi Centre Builders”, which is registered with GMADA authorities and is located at VIP Road, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The complainants were allured with the assurances and advertisements made by the opposite party, booked a unit in the said complex of the opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as advance. The total price of the unit was fixed as Rs.1,06,40,000/-. On 29.09.2017, the complainants was allotted Unit No.OFS/634, 6th Floor, Type Office Un-furnished on 05.10.2017 in the project called Chandigarh Citi Centrum situated on the VIP Road, in Zirakpur, after paying Rs.95,00,000/- including GST of Rs.4,27,500/-. It is further submitted that the complainants obtained a loan against the property from Aditya Birla Finance by signing a tripartite agreement on 05.01.2017. As per the agreement, the unit was to be handed over on or before 31.12.2018 and in case of delay the builder is to pay the interest on the deposited amount. Along with that he was to pay an assured return @12% per annum from the date of payment to the date of offer of possession. The builder had been paying the assured return @ 12% p.a. until June, 2019, there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2989

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONHarinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member, Kiran Sibal, MemberNitin Kanwar – AppellantVersusChandigarh City Centre Developers – RespondentFirst Appeal No.969 of 2025 | First Appeal No.970 of 2025

Cases Referred (1)

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member, Kiran Sibal, Member
Nitin Kanwar – Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh City Centre Developers – Respondent
First Appeal No.969 of 2025 | First Appeal No.970 of 2025