Vinit Bahri vs MGF Developers Ltd. 2026 INSC 114- Consumer Protection Act - Commercial Purpose - Flat Purchasers
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) -The determinative question is whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose 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 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- The mere act of purchasing immovable property, even multiple units, cannot ipso facto attract the exclusion clause of Section 2(1)(d) unless and until it is proved that the dominant purpose behind such purchase was commercial in nature. In absence of such proof, the purchasers cannot be excluded from the definition of ‘consumer’ under the 1986 Act. The mere factum of leasing out the flat does not, by itself, demonstrate that they purchased the property with the dominant purpose of engaging in commercial activity.(Para 17)
Case Info
Here’s the structured information from the judgment:
Basic Details
Case name: Vinit Bahri and Another v. M/s MGF Developers Ltd. and Another
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 114
Coram:Justice Prashant Kumar MishraJustice N.V. Anjaria
Judgment date: 04 February 2026
Case laws and citations referred
- IREO Private Ltd. v. Aloke Anand and Others, (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 SCC 583
- Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 265
- Rohit Chaudhary and Another v. Vipul Limited, (2024) 1 SCC 8
- Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known as Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. v. Raghachand Associates, (2024) 9 SCC 509
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, (2023) 8 SCC 362 : (2023) 4 SCC (Civ) 53 (referred within quotation)
Statutes / laws referred
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Section 2(1)(d) – definition of “consumer” and “commercial purpose” (with Explanation)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Sections 101 and 102 (burden of proof)
Three-sentence brief summary
The appellants, flat purchasers in a housing project, challenged the dismissal of their consumer complaint by the NCDRC on the ground that they were not “consumers” because the flat had been leased out. The Supreme Court held that merely leasing the flat does not by itself prove that the property was purchased for a “commercial purpose”, and that the burden to prove the exclusion from the definition of “consumer” lies on the service provider, which the respondents failed to discharge on a preponderance of probabilities. Consequently, the Court set aside the NCDRC’s order and restored the complaint to the NCDRC for decision on merits in accordance with law.
