A Zirakpur Commercial Unit Buyer Still Counted As A Consumer: What The Mohali Forum Held ज़ीरकपुर की कमर्शियल यूनिट का ख़रीदार फिर भी उपभोक्ता माना गया: मोहाली फ़ोरम ने क्या कहा ਜ਼ੀਰਕਪੁਰ ਦੀ ਕਮਰਸ਼ੀਅਲ ਯੂਨਿਟ ਦਾ ਖ਼ਰੀਦਦਾਰ ਫਿਰ ਵੀ ਖਪਤਕਾਰ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਗਿਆ: ਮੋਹਾਲੀ ਫ਼ੋਰਮ ਨੇ ਕੀ ਕਿਹਾ

Buying a shop or office unit near Zirakpur does not, on its own, take a buyer outside consumer law. That is the point a Mohali district consumer forum order makes, as reported by the Hindustan Times on the sixteenth of October and by Mirror Now a day later. The developer argued that the buyers of a commercial unit at Kishanpura were not consumers at all. The forum rejected that, because the developer produced no evidence that the unit was bought for resale or to earn profit.

What the case was about

The reports say a Panchkula resident and his daughter booked a small commercial unit on the second floor of the Sushma Capital project at Kishanpura. The project stands near the Dhakoli and Gazipur junction. They booked it in June two thousand and nineteen and had paid the full price by August two thousand and twenty one.

The developer had promised possession by the start of February two thousand and twenty two. It offered and handed over the unit in September two thousand and twenty one, months early. The forum noted that at the time of that handover the developer had neither the occupation certificate nor the completion certificate for the project.

The buyers also said that monthly payments promised under a memorandum of understanding signed in August two thousand and nineteen had stopped. They asked for their money back with compensation and interest.

The developer's argument

Towncity Realtors, the developer named in the reports, raised two main defences. The first was that the buyers did not qualify as consumers because the unit was commercial. The second was that they had accepted possession, and the developer asked for the return of the monthly sums it had already paid them.

The first defence matters most to anyone buying commercial space. If it had succeeded, the buyers would have had no case before the forum at all, whatever the state of the building.

How the Consumer Protection Act draws the line

The Consumer Protection Act of two thousand and nineteen defines a consumer as a person who buys goods or hires a service for consideration. It then leaves out anyone who obtains goods "for resale or for any commercial purpose", and anyone who avails of a service "for any commercial purpose".

An explanation in the same definition says that 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". Separately, the Act's definition of service names housing construction in its list.

So the type of property does not decide the matter. The purpose of the purchase does. A commercial unit bought for a person's own use can sit inside the definition. A unit bought to trade or to let out as a business may not.

Where the forum put the burden

The reported reasoning is short. The forum said the developer had produced no evidence to show that the buyers purchased the unit for resale or to earn profits. On that record the objection failed, and the buyers were treated as consumers.

In practice this places the burden on the party raising the objection. A developer who says the buyer is a trader has to show it with something on the record. A label in the booking papers is not evidence of the buyer's purpose.

The reports do not say what use the buyers intended for the unit, or whether the monthly payments under the memorandum were argued to show an investment motive. A forum looking at a different set of facts could weigh those payments against the buyer. This order gives no guidance on that.

The possession question

On the second defence, the forum held that handing over the unit without the occupation and completion certificates was not a valid offer of possession. Without those papers, it said, the developer could not claim that the project was ready to be occupied. Taking the keys did not end the buyers' complaint.

The forum allowed the complaint in part. It directed the developer and its director to pay interest on the amount deposited, from the day of the handover until the certificates are obtained. It added one combined sum to cover mental agony and harassment along with litigation costs. It made the company and its director jointly and severally liable, which means the buyers can recover the whole from either of them.

The reports say nothing about the refund the buyers had asked for. The order as reported leaves the buyers with the unit and with interest running until the developer gets the certificates.

Two other recent orders on the same theme

The order is not an isolated one. On the fifteenth of October The Times of India reported a different Mohali forum order about a flat in Sector Sixty Six A. There too the forum held that handing over keys without the statutory certificates was not a valid offer of possession. It also held that a promotional brochure formed part of the service contract, and it ordered the builder to restore a parking space that had been split.

The Kishanpura case adds the consumer status point to that line of orders. It reaches buyers of commercial space, who are often told that the consumer forum is closed to them.

What the monthly payments question leaves open

The developer asked for the monthly sums it had paid to be returned. The reports do not say how the forum dealt with that request. They also do not say whether the forum treated the memorandum of understanding as part of the sale or as a separate investment arrangement.

That gap matters. Schemes that pay a buyer each month until possession are common in commercial projects around Mohali. How a forum treats them can affect both the consumer status question and the amount a buyer ends up receiving. The reported order does not answer it.

What the order does not settle

This is one district forum order, known so far only through press accounts. The order itself was not available to us at the time of writing. It turns on its own papers and its own facts. Either side can appeal to the state forum under the Act within the time it allows, and the reports do not say whether an appeal is planned.

The order also does not decide whether the project will receive its certificates, or when. Interest runs only until they are obtained, so the outcome for the buyers depends on a step that lies with the developer and the planning authority.

What the case shows about the papers

The buyers' case rested on a few documents. The booking and payment record showed what they had paid and when. The promised possession date came from the developer's own terms. The absence of the certificates was a fact the developer could not explain away.

On the other side, the developer's objection rested on the word commercial in the description of the unit. The forum held that this was not enough without evidence of the buyers' purpose. A buyer's own use of the unit, or the lack of any trading in units, is the kind of fact that settled the point in this case.

Related reading

- A Mohali contractor took an advance and never started: what the consumer forum ordered
- When a Mohali builder ignores a consumer forum order: how enforcement works

Sources: The sources we use are listed on our Editorial Sources page.

This piece describes a reported district consumer forum order and the published text of the Consumer Protection Act. Nothing here is legal advice, and any dispute over a commercial unit turns on its own papers and facts.