LexVINIT BAHRI AND ANOTHER versus M/S MGF DEVELOPERS LTD. AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 370 : 2026 INSC 114 Vinit Bahri and Another v. M/s MGF Developers Ltd. and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 2023) 04 February 2026 [Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the NCDRC was right in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellants on the premise that they do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ for leasing out the subject property for commercial purposes, falling within the exclusion clause of s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – The respondents launched a group housing project – The appellants in March 2005, deposited Rs.15,00,000/- as the booking amount, and, on 02.09.2005, they were allotted a Unit – The appellants filed the subject complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice – The appellants challenged the demand of Rs.30,81,894/- under various heads of EEDC, IDC, Service Tax, etc. and also Rs.4,80,000/- towards deficiency in providing promised fixtures in the flat – Respondent no.1 alleged that appellants have purchased the said flat for commercial purposes and that appellants are not consumers – The NCDRC reached to a conclusion that the appellants do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as they leased the said flat premises – Correctness: Held: The NCDRC has erred in dismissing the appellants’ complaint – The onus of proving that the appellants fall within the exclusion clause of s.2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act rests upon the respondents, and the respondents have failed to discharge this onus on a preponderance of probabilities – The determinative question is whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose * Author [2026] 2 S.C.R. 371 Vinit Bahri and Another v. M/s MGF Developers Ltd. and Another behind purchasing the flat was to facilitate profit generation through commercial activity, and whether there exists a close and direct nexus between the purchase and such profit-generating activity – The respondents have not placed any cogent material on record to establish such nexus – The mere factum of leasing out the flat does not, by itself, demonstrate that the appellants purchased the property with the dominant purpose of engaging in commercial activity – The question of what constitutes ‘commercial purpose’ is a question of fact to be decided in the circumstances of each case based on the purpose to which the goods/properties were purchased – It must be emphasized that the mere act of purchasing immovable property, even multiple units, cannot ipso facto attract the exclusion clause of s.2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act unless and until it is proved that the dominant purpose behind such purchase was commercial in nature – In absence of such proof, the appellants cannot be excluded from the definition of ‘consumer’ under the 1986 Act. [Para 17] Case Law Cited Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and Others [2019] 14 SCR 563 : (2020) 2 SCC 265; Rohit Chaudhary and Another v. Vipul Limited [2023] 14 SCR 394 : (2024) 1 SCC 8; Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates [2024] 6 SCR 214 : (2024) 9 SCC 509 – relied on. IREO Private Ltd. v. Aloke Anand and Others [2022] 2 SCR 411 : (2022) 9 SCC 412; Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Company Ltd., 1990 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3; Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [1995] 3 SCR 174 : (1995) 3 SCC 583; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors [2023] 3 SCR 448 : (2023) 8 SCC 362 – referred to. List of Acts Consumer Protection Act, 1986. List of Keywords Consumer; s.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Preponderance of probabilities; Dominant intention; Dominant purpose; Profit generation; Leasing; Commercial purpose. 372 [2026] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2023 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC No. 74 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Krishnamohan K., Ms. Priya, Ms. Dania Nayyar, Mrs. Prerna Jain Kala. Adv. for the Respondent(s): Ms. Diya Kapoor, Sr. Adv., Yudister Singh, Akhil Sachar, Siddhartha Iyer, Aman Gupta, Ms. Srishti Ghoshal, Tonmoy Talukdar, Ms. Payal Rani, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1) This Appeal assails the impugned judgm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.