Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. vs. M/S Vipul Ltd.
Background
The appellants bought a commercial office unit from a builder (Vipul Ltd.) for their self-employment and livelihood, but the builder later unilaterally shifted their allotment to a different floor and unit, and then failed to hand over possession even after the agreed 24-month period expired. When the appellants sought a refund with interest and compensation from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Commission dismissed their complaint at the threshold, holding they were not "consumers" under the Act because one appellant was also engaged in a separate investment/property-dealing business.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that being engaged in one line of business does not automatically disqualify a person from being a "consumer" in an unrelated transaction: what matters is the specific purpose behind the specific purchase in question. Since the appellants had explicitly stated in their complaint that they sought the office space for self-employment and livelihood, and nothing in the record contradicted this, the National Commission's finding was erroneous. The Court declined to remit the matter given how old the dispute was, and instead directly ordered the builder to refund the amount received (Rs. 51,10,117) with 12% annual interest plus litigation costs, since the appellants had already repudiated the contract.
Lesson Learnt
A person is not automatically excluded from consumer protection just because they also run some other business. Courts must look at the specific purpose of the specific purchase, and if it was for the buyer's own livelihood or self-employment, consumer protection remedies remain available.