This first appeal has been filed by the appellants Nilabh Jain and another against the order dated 03.12.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.107 of 2014.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that opposite party Nos.1 & 2/respondents launched project  by the name “Central Plaza” at Mohali hills Sector 105 SAS Nagar.  Complainants/appellants deposited Rs.8,09,233/- vide receipt No.539553 and Rs.8,09,233 vide Receipt No.540794 dated 26.12.2007 as booking amount.  Opposite parties issued provisional allotment letter on 17.01.2008 regarding allotment of 15GF (Ground Floor) and BF (Basement Floor) having approx. super area 1300 sq. ft. 909 sq. ft.  Buyer agreement was executed between opposite parties and complainants in 2007.  Respondent No.3 agreed to sanction loan of Rs.50,70,000/- and Rs.17,70,000/- in respect of ground floor and basement vide letter dated 21.2.2008.  Possession was assured to be given in September 2009, but the construction work was stopped after June, 2008.   

3.      Aggrieved by the actions of the opposite parties, the complainants filed a complaint before the State Commission.  The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties.  However, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 03.12.2014 on the ground that the complainants are not consumers within the purview of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      Hence, the present appeal.

5.      Heard the learned  counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the space was booked for earning livelihood by self-employment as the space was to be utilized by the son of the complainants, who will be starting fresh business of making school uniforms. Learned counsel further stated that this is only the space and the complainants are not engaged in trading of spaces or earning the profit from this space.  The space will only be utilised for keeping the clothes as storage and also for preparation of school uniforms.  Thus, first of all, this is not the commercial activity itself and furthermore this is for earning livelihood by means of self-employment.  It was argued that the State Commission has not considered this aspect and has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainants are not consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and are not covered under explanation attached to this Section.

7.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 & 2 stated that the whole building is a commercial complex as the allotment letter itself states that this is an allotment of unit in Commercial Project “Central Plaza”.   Thus, it is clear that the whole project is a commercial project and any person who has been allotted space in this project, he will be utilizing for commercial purpose.  It was further argued that the complainants themselves have admitted that they are in the business of making and selling of school uniforms and they want to expand their business and for that purpose only this commercial space was booked.  Even the loan taken by the complainants from respondent No.3 is the commercial loan as is clear from the sanction letter of the loan.  From the averments made by the complainants, the space is to be utilised for industrial purpose for preparation of school uniforms, their storage and sales.  This is clearly a commercial purpose.  The complainants would definitely earn profit after this activity and therefore, this is a pure commercial activity.  There is no question of earning livelihood by means of self-employment as the complainants are already settled in the business and they only want to expand their business.  The State Commission has rightly analysed all the aspects and has reached to the conclusion that the complainants are not consumers. 

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 stated that the main dispute is between the complainants and respondent Nos.1 & 2.  The respondent No.3 has only sanctioned the loan to the complainants and the interest of the respondent No.3 is only that the project of the complainants succeeds. With respect to the dispute, he has no view to express.

9.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have examined the material on record.   The State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants on the ground that the complainants are not consumers as they have booked the units for commercial purpose.  It is seen from the record that the allotment of units has been made in the commercial complex and prima facie this only indicates that the whole complex will be used for commercial purpose and the persons purchasing these units will be utilising the units for commercial purpose. Moreover, the complainants are already engaged in the business of preparation and sale of school uniforms on a large scales and it seems that they have booked these units for expansion of their business.  It has been claimed by the complainants that these units have been purchased for starting business of son, however, the units have been purchased in the name of the complainants and not in the name of the son. Had these units been purchased by the son, then the argument of having purchased units for earning livelihood would have sustained.  In the present set of facts, the argument that the units have been purchased for earning livelihood by means of self-employment is not substantiated.  Even the loan has been sanctioned as a commercial loan. Definitely this seems to be for expansion of the business. Thus, all the evidence available on record goes on to show that the units have been purchased for expanding business which implies commercial purpose. 

10.    Based on the above discussion, I find that the State Commission has rightly decided that the units were booked for commercial purpose and therefore, the complainants are not covered within the explanation attached to the definition of “Consumer” in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainants/appellants have failed to establish that the units were purchased for earning their livelihood by means of self-employment.  On the other hand, the evidence suggests that the units have been booked for expansion of the existing business and therefore, commercial purpose is implied.  In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the appeal.  Accordingly, First Appeal No.19 of 2015 is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.  However, liberty is granted to the complainants to avail the jurisdiction of the civil court, if they are so advised.