In Brief
Rohit Chaudhary and another purchased a commercial office unit in a Gurugram project from the respondent developer. The National Consumer Redressal Commission dismissed their complaint for non-delivery of possession, holding they were not 'consumers' because they engaged in business. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that a person buying commercial property to run a self-employed business for livelihood remains a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court clarified that 'commercial purpose' excludes only profit-oriented activities on a large scale, not self-employment use. The appeal was partly allowed, directing the developer to refund Rs. 51,10,117 with 12% interest and litigation costs of Rs. 1 lakh.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.