State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nitin Kanwar vs M/S Chandigarh Citi Centre Developers on 16 April, 2026
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
1.
First Appeal No.969 of 2025
Date of Institution : 19.12.2025
Date of Reserve : 12.03.2026
Date of Decision : 16.04.2026
1. Nitin Kanwar aged about 53 years son of Satish Kumar R/o
House No.165, Sector 21, Panchkula-134113.
(Aadhar No.9956 8965 0407) (Mobile No.94685-57770)
2. Priyanka Kanwar aged about 43 years W/o Nitin Kanwar R/o
House No.165, Sector 21, Panchkula-134113.
(Aadhar No.4054 9971 7108) (Mobile No.94685-57770)
....Appellants/Complainants
Versus
M/s Chandigarh City Centre Developers, VIP Road, Zirakpur,
Punjab-140603.
.....Respondent/Opposite party
2.
First Appeal No.970 of 2025
Date of Institution : 19.12.2025
Date of Reserve : 12.03.2026
Date of Decision : 16.04.2026
1. Nitin Kanwar aged about 53 years son of Satish Kumar R/o
House No.165, Sector 21, Panchkula-134113.
(Aadhar No.9956 8965 0407) (Mobile No.94685-57770)
2. Priyanka Kanwar aged about 43 years W/o Nitin Kanwar R/o
House No.165, Sector 21, Panchkula-134113.
(Aadhar No.4054 9971 7108) (Mobile No.94685-57770)
....Appellants/Complainants
Versus
M/s Chandigarh City Centre Developers, VIP Road, Zirakpur,
Punjab-140603.
.....Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeal No 969 of 2025 2
First Appeals under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 30.10.2025 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present (F.A.No.969 of 2025):-
For the appellants : Sh.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This order will dispose of the above noted two appeals, which have been preferred by the same appellants/complainants against the orders dated 30.10.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the complaint filed by them, under the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act'), was dismissed.
2. Facts are taken from F.A. No.969 of 2025. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Summarily the facts of the case are that complainant booked the unit for starting his restaurant by obtaining the loan in order to purchase the unit. The opposite party who formed the said project in the name and style of "Chandigarh Citi Centre Builders", which is registered with GMADA authorities and is located at VIP Road, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The complainants were allured with the assurances and advertisements made by the opposite First Appeal No 969 of 2025 3 party, booked a unit in the said complex of the opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as advance. The total price of the unit was fixed as Rs.1,06,40,000/-. On 29.09.2017, the complainants was allotted Unit No.OFS/634, 6th Floor, Type Office Un-furnished on 05.10.2017 in the project called Chandigarh Citi Centrum situated on the VIP Road, in Zirakpur, after paying Rs.95,00,000/- including GST of Rs.4,27,500/-. It is further submitted that the complainants obtained a loan against the property from Aditya Birla Finance by signing a tripartite agreement on 05.01.2017. As per the agreement, the unit was to be handed over on or before 31.12.2018 and in case of delay the builder is to pay the interest on the deposited amount. Along with that he was to pay an assured return @12% per annum from the date of payment to the date of offer of possession. The builder had been paying the assured return @ 12% p.a. until June, 2019, thereafter, handed over the possession letter on 15.09.2019 but failed to deliver the complete possession until date. The total amount of Rs.99,22,500/- has been paid by the complainants to the opposite party but still the tower stands incomplete and unfurnished. This act and conduct of the opposite party compelled the complainants to approach the District Commission seeking following reliefs:
i) to refund a sum of Rs.99,22,500/- along with interest @18% per month until the date of order;
ii) to compensate for misleading advertisements.
iii) to compensate the complainants for mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant;
First Appeal No 969 of 2025 4
iv) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for committing unfair trade practice
& deficiency in service; and
v) to pay Rs.60,000/- as costs of litigation
4. Upon notice, opposite party appeared but failed to file their written reply, therefore, the defence of the opposite party struck of, vide order dated 14.03.2022. Even, the applications moved by the opposite party for recalling the order, was also dismissed, vide order dated 22.02.2023.
5. The complainants led their evidence in support of their contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the complaint was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 30.10.2025.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 and to allow their appeal.
7. We have heard the contentions of the appellants/complainants at the admission stage and have carefully gone through the documents available on the file and have also given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
8. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants/complainants vehemently contended that the observations of the District Commission, whereby the complaint was dismissed in limine on the ground that the appellants/complainants do not fall within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, are wholly First Appeal No 969 of 2025 5 erroneous and not legally sustainable. It has been argued that the District Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction in rendering such findings without issuing notice to the opposite party. It is submitted that the determination of the status of the appellants/complainants as 'consumer' requires proper adjudication, which can only be undertaken after affording an opportunity to the opposite party to file its reply and placing relevant material on record. Therefore, the impugned order, having been passed without following the principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. He further asserted that the appellant/complainant No.1, who is a retired Airforce Officer and his wife appellant/complainant No.2 was to own the property to run a business in order to earn their livelihood.
As the appellant/complainant No.1 was retired at a very young age of 43 years and he want to start his business by mortgaging the property, in question, but this fact is not appreciated and the District Commission has hurriedly dismissed the complaint. He alleged that the Consumer Protection Act is consumer friendly Act, which was enacted by the statute with benevolent intentions in order to save the consumers from being cheated by the sellers and service providers and it never envisaged that the appellants/complainants who approached the court should be debarred from approaching the Forums on technicalities. Learned counsel for the appellants/complainants has also referred to the case laws, which is as follows:
First Appeal No 969 of 2025 6
i) Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited earlier known as Shriram Chits(K) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raghachand Associates. 2024(3) RCR (Civil) 183.
ii) Sunil Kohli and another Vs. M/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd., (SC) Law Finder Doc ID 1599863
9. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/complainants is that proper notice was issued to the respondent/opposite party but still the respondent/opposite party failed to file reply to the complaint within the stipulated period and their defence was stuck off so it can be said that the case of the appellants/complainants dismissed at the preliminary stage is not maintainable. It is pertinent to mention here that before proceeding further, it is necessary to go through the definition of 'consumer' as prescribed under Section 2(7) of the Act, which deals with the issue raised by learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties:
"2. Definition- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (7) "consumer" means any person who-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system or deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of First Appeal No 969 of 2025 7 the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause,-
(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self- employment;
(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-
level marketing."
10. From the bare perusal of the wording of the Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, it can be seen that the emphasis is laid on the purpose for which the goods were purchased though the use of such goods are actually put would be helpful in deciding the purpose for which it was purchased.
11. Furthermore, Section 38 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the District Commission upon admission of a complaint. As per the statutory mandate, once a complaint is admitted, a copy thereof is required to be furnished to the opposite party, granting it an opportunity to file its written version within the prescribed time. In the event of failure to do so, the District Commission is empowered to proceed with the matter and adjudicate the dispute on merits. The relevant portion of Section 38 is as follows:
38. Procedure on admission of complaint.
(1) The District Commission shall, on admission of a complaint, or in respect of cases referred for mediation on failure of settlement by mediation, proceed with such complaint.
(2)Where the complaint relates to any goods, the District Commission shall,-First Appeal No 969 of 2025 8
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by it;
(b) if the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Commission, proceed to settle the consumer dispute in the manner specified in clauses (c) to (g);
(c) if the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner as may be prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory to make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Commission within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by it;
XX XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX XX
(g) give a reasonable opportunity to the complainant as well
as the opposite party of being heard as to the correctness or otherwise of the report made by the appropriate laboratory and also as to the objection made in relation thereto under clause (f) and issue an appropriate order under section 39."
12. On the same analogy, the court whoever is entertaining the consumer complaint is duty bound to analyze the matter on four grounds; firstly, whether the complainant falls within the definition of 'consumer'; secondly, whether the Consumer Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain such complaint under the law; thirdly, Whether it has pecuniary jurisdiction as envisaged under First Appeal No 969 of 2025 9 the Consumer Protection Act and fourthly, the nature of the goods or property, in question.
13. Similarly, in the present case, the District Commission, at the initial stage, analyzed the status of the complainant as a consumer and subsequently held that since the property bearing No.633 and 634 at 6th Floor in Chandigarh Citi Centre, Zirakpur, under dispute, is of commercial nature that too for an assured return @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of offer of possession, it cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, be presumed that the complainant is a bona fide consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. This is because the property he wanted to purchase is a commercial property with an assured monthly return. On this point also, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant stated that no such monthly return was ever paid to the appellant/complainant, although the appellant/complainant demanded the same number of times. This clearly indicates that the appellant/complainant intended to obtain an assured monthly return, which does not serve the purpose of qualifying as a 'consumer' under the Act.
14. Subsequently, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has relied upon the judgment reported as 2024(3) RCR (Civil) 183 "Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier known as Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raghachand Associates". On the contrary, as per the settle proposition of law it is for the court to determine whether the purpose for which the appellant/complainant seeks to acquire the property is for personal First Appeal No 969 of 2025 10 use or for a commercial purpose. In the case, if this case is analyze on this ground then the appellant/complainant does not fall within the ambit of 'consumer'
15. Now coming to the moot question that arises for consideration is whether the District Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint at the threshold without adjudicating upon the status of the appellants/complainants as "consumers." Undoubtedly, while entertaining a complaint, it is the bounden duty of the Commission to examine the status of the appellants/complainants as well as the nature of the transaction involved.
16. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the appellants/complainants had applied for purchase of two commercial units bearing Nos. 633 and 634 on the 6th Floor in a project developed by Chandigarh Citi Centre Builders at VIP Road, Zirakpur. A Commercial Unit Buyers Agreement dated 25.09.2017, A-1, was executed between the parties, followed by issuance of an allotment letter dated 05.10.2017, A-3. Subsequently, an offer of possession dated 15.07.2019 was also extended to the appellants/complainants, subject to clearance of outstanding dues.
17. Thus, from the nature of the transaction, it becomes crucial to determine whether the purchase of the said commercial units falls within the ambit of "consumer" or is excluded on account of being for a "commercial purpose," which requires proper adjudication on the basis of the documents placed on record by the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint. First Appeal No 969 of 2025 11
18. From the careful perusal of the record, it is observed that the appellants/complainants have failed to place on record any material to substantiate that the commercial units, in question, were intended to be used exclusively for earning their livelihood by way of self-employment. It is relevant to mention here that there is no averment or evidence regarding their educational qualifications, prior experience, or expertise in the field of running a restaurant. In the absence of such foundational facts, the plea of self- employment remains unsubstantiated. Further, it has been alleged by the appellants/complainants that no issues were framed by the District Commission. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.11397 of 2016 titled "Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank", decided on 22.02.2022, has specifically held that a person must prove that the services were availed exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and not for the purpose of earning profits. In the present complaint, no such evidence has been placed on record to establish the said requirement. The relevant paragraph of aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:
"45. It could thus be seen that when a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within the meaning of 'consumer' as defined in the said Act, he will have to establish that services were availed exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment. There cannot be any straitjacket formula and such a question will have to be decided in the facts of each case, depending upon the evidence placed on record." First Appeal No 969 of 2025 12
19. Also, the Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment passed First Appeal No.888 of 2013 titled "Jasobanta Narayan Ram Vs. The Branch Manager L and T Finance" decided on 04.03.2014 has held as under:
"9. .........The version given at the time of arguments that the other vehicle was just lying idle, cannot be believed to be true. The appellant has not been able to show as to how the purchase of two trucks does not fall within the meaning of commercial transaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed in their order passed in "Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute" [as reported in 1995 AIR SC 1428] that a person who purchases an autorickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by any person could not be a consumer. In the present case, the appellant/complainant has not been able to show, how he can qualify to come under the definition of consumer under the Act when he has not given any clarification about the use of operation of the other truck. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone that the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. On merits also, it has been clearly admitted by the complainant that he was a defaulter on the date of repossession of the vehicle by the OP. He also admits that it has been provided in the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement that OP shall have the right of repossess the vehicle in the case of defaulter. The deficiency in service on the part of the OP has not been proved anywhere."
20. Further, we are of the considered view that the nature of the activity proposed, i.e., running a restaurant, inherently requires a substantial operational setup, including engagement of multiple First Appeal No 969 of 2025 13 persons for cooking, serving, maintenance, and overall management, and cannot reasonably be carried out by a single individual or with minimal assistance. It is difficult to accept that such an establishment can be effectively run by one or two individuals merely with the assistance of one or two helpers. The appellants/complainants have also not disclosed how many persons were proposed to be employed or the scale at which the business was intended to be operated. These omissions create serious doubt regarding the claim that the units were purchased solely for the purpose of earning livelihood through self- employment.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and as per the law laid down, it is held that the appellants/complainants have failed to establish that the purchase of the commercial units falls within the exception carved out under the explanation to Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act. Rather, the circumstances indicate that the transaction was for a commercial purpose. Consequently, the appellants/complainants do not fall within the definition of "consumer" under the Act, and the complaint is not maintainable. The findings recorded by the District Commission, therefore, need no interference and are hereby upheld.
First Appeal No.970 of 2025
22. This case is also filed by the same appellants/complainants for the unit in the same project, as discussed in F.A. No.969 of 2025. The facts are as similar as stated in First Appeal No.969 of First Appeal No 969 of 2025 14 2025. Also, similar contentions have been raised by the appellants/ complainants.
23. In view of the findings recorded in First Appeal No.969 of 2025, the appeal filed by the appellants/complainants is hereby dismissed.
24. Both the appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER April 16th ,2026 parmod