In Brief
A consumer complaint was filed before the NCDRC alleging deficiency in service by a real estate developer regarding four flats booked in a Gurgaon project. The developer objected that the appellant was not a 'consumer' because booking four flats indicated resale intent. The NCDRC upheld the objection without evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that whether someone qualifies as a consumer cannot be decided on mere assumption; the finding must follow completion of pleadings and evidence. The case was remanded to the NCDRC to decide the consumer status on the merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.