Name of the case:Rohit Chaudhary V. M/S. Vipul Ltd.

Case Number: [Civil Appeal No. 5858 of 2015]

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Judges Aravind Kumar and S. Ravindra Bhat

Order Date: 06/09/2023

Facts of the Case:

• In this case, the appellants intended to purchase a commercial complex at ‘Vipul World Commercial’ at Gurugram, Haryana, promoted by the Respondent. In the same complex, the Mrs. Bindu Rawlley and Mr. Talwinder Singh intended to sell their shares in office unit No.306 on the third floor allotted to them by the Respondents, which the appellants agreed to purchase.
• It was agreed between the appellants and their vendors that appellants would pay a sum of Rs. 18,07,100 to the original allotees and the balance amount of Rs.34,27,050 to the respondent as and when demanded by the respondent. on payment to the original allotees, the fact of such sale of shares was intimated to the respondent. The respondents demanded the amount and the appellants paid accordingly. 
• The Respondents allotted commercial space in “Vipul Business Park” – 105 and thereafter re-allotted unit No.814 on 8th Floor for a sale consideration of Rs.51,51,415. This unilateral change was objected to by the appellants and in response to the same, the respondent threatened to forfeit the amount paid till date and also to cancel the allotment of the office space.
• The Respondent forwarded a buyer’s agreement to the appellant and called upon them to return the same after signing and same was duly complied under the circumstances that prevailed. The respondent had agreed to deliver possession of the premises to the appellants within 24 months from the date of execution of such agreement and for reasons unknown, the same was not delivered. In the interregnum, appellants continued to pay instalments as and when demands were raised by the respondent (same has been denied by respondent). On account of non-intimation about delivery of possession of the office space unit allotted to the appellants and the inaction of the respondent in not delivering possession of the office space allotted, the appellants approached the National Consumer Redressal Commission at New Delhi by filing a complaint, which was preceded by issuance of a legal notice whereunder the appellants demanded refund of Rs.51,10,117/- and interest @ of 18% P.A. amounting to Rs.42,52,143/- after terminating the buyer’s agreement dated 27.11.2009. A sum of Rs.50 lakhs was also claimed towards mental agony.
• The Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground of maintainability holding that appellants are not ‘consumers’ as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Act as appellants were already carrying on business for the purposes of their livelihood and therefore, it cannot be said that the property which was the subject matter of the complaint before the Commission was being purchased by them exclusively for the purposes of earning livelihood by way of self-employment. Hence the appeal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court Observed and Held as Follows:

• The Court observed that law protects the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. The word ‘consumer’ is a comprehensive expression. It extends from a person who buys any commodity to consume either as eatable or otherwise from a shop, business house, corporation, store, fair price shop to use of private or public services. In Oxford Dictionary a consumer is defined as, ‘a purchaser of goods or services’.
• The Court, for the purpose of interpretation of Commercial Purpose in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, understood the meaning of Commercial Purpose in its ordinary sense.
• The Court observed that the appellants might have intended to take this property for running their business to eke out their livelihood or open the office for the purposes of dealing in the existing business or the possibility of the proposed office being used as a corporate office or head office or branch office of their existing business which cannot be ruled out. 
• The Court held that the appellants were in search of office space “for their self-employment and to run their business and earn their livelihood” they had entered into an agreement to purchase the same from the original allotees.
• The Court observed that though there are several circumstantial facts evidencing the offer of permissive possession of premises it cannot be presumed that possession of office premises which is ready to offer was being delivered to the appellants.
• The Court therefore, directed the respondent to refund the amount it has received from appellants with interest calculated @ 12% per annum which would offset the interest loss if at all, if any caused to the respondent on account of delayed payments of the instalments by the appellants and keeping in mind the appreciated value of the asset namely office premises which was proposed to be sold by the respondent to the appellant. 
• The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.