VINIT BAHRI AND ANOTHER versus M/S MGF DEVELOPERS LTD. AND ANOTHER

VINIT BAHRI AND ANOTHER versus M/S MGF DEVELOPERS LTD. AND ANOTHER

The NCDRC erred in dismissing the complaint because the respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving on a preponderance of probabilities that the appellants purchased the flat for a dominant commercial purpose under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; mere leasing of the flat does not, by itself, establish such dominant commercial purpose, and therefore the complaint must be restored to the NCDRC for decision on merits.

Parties
Appellant: Vinit Bahri and Another; Respondent: M/s MGF Developers Ltd. and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 2023 / Appeal (judgment of the Supreme Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment dated 11.05.2023 set aside.
Legal Topics
Consumer, S.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Preponderance of Probabilities, Dominant Intention, Dominant Purpose, Profit Generation, Leasing, Commercial Purpose
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Consumer S.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Preponderance of Probabilities Dominant Intention Dominant Purpose Profit Generation Leasing +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vinit Bahri and Another

Appellant

M/s MGF Developers Ltd. and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 2023 / Appeal (judgment of the Supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants fall outside the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the flat was leased out for commercial purposes and whether the NCDRC was correct in dismissing the complaint on that basis

Ratio Decidendi

The NCDRC erred in dismissing the complaint because the respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving on a preponderance of probabilities that the appellants purchased the flat for a dominant commercial purpose under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; mere leasing of the flat does not, by itself, establish such dominant commercial purpose, and therefore the complaint must be restored to the NCDRC for decision on merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment dated 11.05.2023 set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 11.05.2023 passed by the NCDRC in Consumer Complaint No.74/2017 is set aside.
  • Consumer Complaint No.74/2017 is restored to the file of the NCDRC to be decided on merits and in accordance with law.