Hyderabad: The District Consumer forum, Hyderabad III, has rejected a compensation plea for a damaged property on the grounds that the complainant was not a consumer as he planned to use the property for commercial use. The 43-year-old complainant, a resident of Masab Tank, had entered into a sale agreement for a bungalow with Golden Palm Constructions at Meenpur village in 2005 for Rs 22.5 lakh, but when he received the sale deed in 2009, the property was damaged and not upto his expectation.
The complainant demanded a compensation of about Rs 38 lakh, which included Rs 6 lakh for the 57 months the house lay vacant. The complainant said that he lost that revenue which he would have otherwise received if the property was given on rent. The court observed that the complainant didn’t fit the definition of ‘consumer’ as per Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act.
The court said, “Since the complainant himself admitted that he wished to give out the bungalow on lease and earn rental income from it, we are of the view that this was a purchase made for investment and would be termed as commercial purpose, and hence the complainant is excluded from the definition of ‘consumer’.” Since the sale amounted to '24,16,375 with taxes, it was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. According to Section 11, if the value of contested goods and the compensation demanded is beyond '20 lakh, then the case cannot be entertained by the District Consumer Forum.
