Purchased for commercial purpose, not consumer

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as NCDRC) while considering the dispute between EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. and Banga Constructions Pvt. Ltd., held that, anyone including a corporation OR a company who has purchased any goods or hired any services forany commercial purpose, then they shall not fall under the definition of consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In the instant case between EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. and Banga Constructions Pvt. Ltd., an appeal was filed before the NCDRC by the Developer of a Commercial Complex, known as “Central Plaza” atMohali Hills against an order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Complaint no. C-11/20, whereby the Appellant has been proceeded against ex parte as, in spite of service of notice, it had remained unrepresented when the Complaint was taken up for hearing on that date.

The question came before the NCDRC is that, the Respondent/Complainant to satisfy NCDRC as to how in the first instance the Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in not delivering possession of four shops in the said Commercial Complex, was maintainable under theConsumer Protection Act, 1986.

Having perused the documents on record, including the allotment letters, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was of the opinion that the shops acquired by the Respondent Company purely for commercial purpose and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the Respondent Company could be said to be a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.

It is trite that the words “for any commercial purpose” used in the Section means that the goods purchased or services hired are used or proposed to be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. It is manifest that the four units booked by the Respondent Company with the Appellant were meant to be used in some activity directly intended to generate profit.

Therefore, NCDRC is of the opinion that the Complaint filed by the Respondent Company under the Act was not maintainable as the Respondent Company was not a consumer covered under the Act. However, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the Respondent Company to approach any appropriate forum, except a Consumer Fora, for redressal of its grievance against the Appellant.

Read Full judgment on EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. v. Banga Constructions (P) Ltd. (24-03-2015, NCDRC)

Share this post:

Recent Posts