The national consumer commission dismissed a complaint filed by a Goregaon-based doctor against a developer, ruling that the purpose of investing in a larger space for CT Scan and MRI services was primarily commercial and not related to livelihood, thereby excluding it from the purview of a consumer issue. The doctor had sought a bigger space to accommodate the additional services but faced delays from the developer. The commission advised the doctor to seek appropriate recourse through the relevant forum.
The order, issued on June 28 by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, the presiding member of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, came in response to a complaint filed by Dr. Hemant Shah and Mrs. Mita, residents of Goregaon, against M/s Zenal Construction Private Limited and its director, Prakash Barot.
Dr. Shah, an M.D. in Radiology, had been operating a diagnostic clinic since 1994 in an 850 sq.ft. space in Goregaon (West), providing various diagnostic services. Recognising an opportunity to establish a state-of-the-art Radiology Centre, Dr. Shah decided to expand his services to include CT Scan and MRI. Due to space constraints, he approached Zenal, which was launching the "Krishna Ambika Arcade" project just 25 meters away from his clinic, to acquire a larger space.
The agreement:
Negotiations ensued, resulting in an agreement for the purchase of 1,245 sq.ft. on the ground floor and 1,275 sq.ft. on the first floor, connected by an internal staircase in the C wing of the project. However, due to changes in the project plans, Zenal informed Dr. Shah that he could obtain an increased area of 1,255 sq.ft. on the ground floor and first floor, totaling 1,990 sq.ft., for an additional payment.
However, due to legal disputes related to the project, Dr. Shah did not receive possession of the premises. When he approached the commission, Zenal contended that the complaint was time-barred and that Dr. Shah did not meet their definition of a consumer.
"Dominant purpose" was commercial in nature, says commission
The commission, after considering various case laws and analysing the concept of "consumer," concluded that since Dr. Shah had booked the space with Zenal primarily for expanding his business and generating more profit, rather than solely for livelihood, the "dominant purpose" was commercial in nature. Consequently, the commission dismissed the complaint and advised Dr. Shah to seek relief through the appropriate forum.
