ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR. versus M/S VIPUL LTD.

ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR. versus M/S VIPUL LTD.

The appellants pleaded and gave evidence that they purchased the office space for self-employment and to run their business to earn livelihood; under Section 2(1)(d) read with the 1993 Explanation a purchaser who uses goods himself exclusively for earning his livelihood remains a 'consumer'; the NCDRC erred in holding appellants not to be consumers. The appeal was allowed in part and the respondent was directed to refund Rs.51,10,117 with interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint until payment and to pay litigation costs of Rs.100,000; the NCDRC order dated 11.05.2015 was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Rohit Chaudhary & Anr.; Respondent: M/s Vipul Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No.5858 of 2015 / Final Judgment on Appeal From NCDRC Order Dated 11.05.2015
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; impugned NCDRC order set aside
Legal Topics
Commercial Purpose, Definition of Consumer, Maintainability, Interpretation of Statute, Refund and Interest
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Commercial Purpose Definition of Consumer Maintainability Interpretation of Statute Refund and Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rohit Chaudhary & Anr.

Appellant

M/s Vipul Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No.5858 of 2015 / Final Judgment on Appeal From NCDRC Order Dated 11.05.2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are 'consumer' within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  2. 2 What is the meaning of 'commercial purpose' under Section 2(1)(d) and its Explanation
  3. 3 Whether the complaint was maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants pleaded and gave evidence that they purchased the office space for self-employment and to run their business to earn livelihood; under Section 2(1)(d) read with the 1993 Explanation a purchaser who uses goods himself exclusively for earning his livelihood remains a 'consumer'; the NCDRC erred in holding appellants not to be consumers. The appeal was allowed in part and the respondent was directed to refund Rs.51,10,117 with interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint until payment and to pay litigation costs of Rs.100,000; the NCDRC order dated 11.05.2015 was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; impugned NCDRC order set aside

Orders

  • Set aside order dated 11.05.2015 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.276 of 2015
  • Respondent directed to refund Rs.51,10,117/- to the appellants