1.      This first appeal has been filed by M/s Paliwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), which had dismissed its complaint against M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited and another, Opposite Parties before the State Commission and Respondents herein, inter alia on the ground that the Complainant/Appellant did not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’ as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Complainant/Appellant, who is a private limited company, had approached the Respondents for purchase of a 5 bedroom residential unit, for which they made a part-payment of Rs.1,00,52,000/-.  The possession of the flat was to be delivered on or before 05.10.2009.  Though allotment letter dated 28.09.2007 was issued and a flat buyer agreement dated 25.01.2008 was entered into and executed between the parties, the housing project started by the Respondents could not take off and, therefore, the flat was not delivered to the Complainant/Appellant.  While the Chandigarh Housing Board, which was also involved in building of the apartment, refunded 30% of the amount paid by the Complainant/Appellant without any interest, Respondent-Builder failed to refund the amount despite a legal notice served to them.  Being aggrieved Complainant/Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs.70,36,400/- to the Complainant/Appellant alongwith 24% interest per annum from 16.11.2007 till realization; compensation of Rs.54,400/- per month amount to Rs.19,58,400/- and payment of future compensation at Rs.54,400/- per month till the date of realization; Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment and litigation charges and also a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of opportunity etc. 

3.      The State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Complainant/Appellant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The relevant observations of the State Commission in this connection are reproduced:

“Thus, the complainant, being a Private Limited Company, availed of the services of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, for the allotment of flat.  There is, no averment, in the complaint, that the flat was purchased by it, for residential purpose of the Managing Director or a Director of the Company.  There is also, no averment, in the complaint, that the said flat was intended to be purchased by the complainant Company, for the residence of its Officer(s).  It means, that the flat was intended to be purchased by the complainant, a Private Limited Company, for the purpose of investment, for reselling the same, as and when, there was escalation in prices, in the market, to earn huge profits, or to use the said flat, as a Guest House, in furtherance of its business activities, for the purpose of earning huge profits.  The flat, thus, was intended to be purchased by the complainant Company, from Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, for commercial purpose.”

4.      Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present first appeal has been filed.

5.      Learned Counsel for the Complainant/Appellant in his oral submissions before us submitted that the State Commission erred in dismissing his complaint on the ground that the Complainant/Appellant is not a ‘consumer’ because the flat in question was being purchased by Complainant/Appellant, who is a private limited company, for the personal use of its Managing Director and not for any ‘commercial purpose’.

6.      We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel and have also gone through the evidence on record.  We agree with the finding of the State Commission that the Complainant/Appellant, who is a private limited company, had bought the flat and in the complaint filed before the State Commission nowhere was it stated that it was meant for any residential purpose.  The State Commission was thus right in concluding that it was bought for a ‘commercial purpose’.  Even if we accept the verbal contention of the Counsel for the Complainant/Appellant that it was for the residential use of its Managing Director, it would still be a ‘commercial purpose’ under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it would be a perk of the office of the Managing Director.  This issue has been squarely covered by a judgment of this Commission in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd. & Anr. (FA No.723 of 2006 decided on 07.02.2013).

7.      Following our own judgment and for the reasons recorded by the State Commission, we see no reason to disagree with the order of the State Commission.  The order of the State Commission is, therefore, upheld in toto and the present first appeal is dismissed.  No costs.