The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission clarified that a purchaser who acquires a shop room to earn a livelihood through self-employment falls within the definition of a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, thereby overturning the lower commission’s dismissal of the complaint.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sri Tapan Kumar Sardar, filed a consumer complaint seeking execution and registration of a deed of conveyance for a shop room that he had possessed since August 2013. He had paid Rs.6,00,000 out of a total consideration of Rs.7,14,000. The complaint, filed on 15 May 2024, prayed for a direction to register the deed and for compensation.
Key Facts
- Possession of the shop room began in August 2013.
- Total purchase price: Rs.7,14,000; amount paid by appellant: Rs.6,00,000.
- Complaint filed on 15 May 2024 (Complaint No. CC/90/2024).
- The appellant argued the purchase was for his livelihood, invoking Section 2(7) of the CPA 2019.
- The respondent (Sri Ghanshyam Dey and co-respondents) contended the dispute was commercial and outside the CPA’s purview.
Procedural History
- 15 May 2024: Complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah.
- 21 November 2024: DCDRC issued Order No.8 dismissing the complaint and Order No.4 allowing Miscellaneous Application No.59/2024 on contest.
- 03 August 2026: First Appeal (SC/19/FA/7/2025) decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.
- 17 August 2026: Court directed parties to appear before the DCDRC.
Parties' Positions
- Appellant: Asserted that the shop room was intended for self-employment, making him a consumer under Section 2(7); argued that early-stage filing does not require exhaustive business documents.
- Respondent: Maintained that the dispute was a commercial transaction, citing Molina Dey v. Runa Kundu (2025) and Annapurna B. Uppin & Others v. Malsiddappa & Anr. (2024) to support non-maintainability.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Restoration of the consumer complaint to the DCDRC’s file.
- Direction for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance.
- Compensation for the balance consideration and related costs.
- Costs of the proceedings.
The Legal Issue
Whether a purchaser who acquires a shop room for the purpose of self-employment qualifies as a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and consequently, whether the complaint is maintainable before the consumer forum.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The appellant relied on the explanation to Section 2(7), which excludes “commercial purpose” only when the goods are used exclusively for earning a livelihood through self-employment.
- Emphasised that paragraph 4 of the complaint expressly stated the intent to run the shop room for livelihood.
- Submitted that demanding income-tax, sales-tax or GST returns at the pleading stage would be unreasonable.
- Cited the principle that the consumer forum should not be barred from adjudicating disputes that fall within the statutory definition of consumer.
For the Respondent
- Argued that the dispute was essentially a commercial transaction concerning registration of a shop room, thus outside the CPA’s ambit.
- Relied on Molina Dey v. Runa Kundu (2025) and Annapurna B. Uppin & Others v. Malsiddappa & Anr. (2024) to contend that commercial disputes cannot be decided under the CPA.
- Insisted that the appellant’s failure to produce business documents indicated a commercial motive.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reproducing the definition of “consumer” in Section 2(7) of the CPA 2019, highlighting the explanatory clause that excludes “commercial purpose” only when the goods are used exclusively for self-employment. It observed that the factual matrix of the cited precedents differed materially from the present case; those cases involved outright commercial enterprises, not individuals seeking livelihood.
"An intending purchaser of a shop room, in our humble estimation, cannot be reasonably expected to produce an exhaustive ledger of business documents at this nascent stage of the proceedings."
The Court noted that paragraph 4 of the complaint clearly articulated the appellant’s intention to use the shop room for self-employment, satisfying the statutory exception. It rejected the respondent’s contention that the lack of tax returns automatically rendered the dispute commercial, emphasizing that the CPA does not require a party to furnish exhaustive business records at the pleading stage.
Further, the Court distinguished the earlier High Court judgments, stating that the legal principles therein could not be seamlessly applied because the present dispute involved a single purchaser-consumer rather than a corporate commercial entity. Consequently, the Court held that the DCDRC’s orders dismissing the complaint were unsustainable.
The Court therefore quashed both Order No.8 (complaint) and Order No.4 (MA No.59/2024) dated 21 November 2024, restored the consumer complaint to the DCDRC’s file, and directed the forum to proceed in accordance with the CPA 2019.
The Verdict
The appeal succeeded. The Court quashed the DCDRC’s orders dated 21 November 2024, restored the consumer complaint, and directed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to adjudicate the matter per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The parties were ordered to appear before the DCDRC on 17 August 2026. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consumer Status of Self-Employment Purchases
- Purchasers acquiring property to earn a livelihood through self-employment are now clearly within the definition of consumer under Section 2(7).
- Lawyers must frame pleadings to highlight the livelihood purpose to invoke consumer protection.
No Obligation to Produce Full Business Records Early
- Courts will not compel a complainant to furnish exhaustive tax or GST returns at the pleading stage when the dispute concerns registration of a deed.
- Practitioners can focus on the intent and purpose rather than extensive documentary proof.
DCDRC Must Apply CPA 2019 Rigorously
-
The forum is obligated to examine disputes on the consumer law lens, even where commercial elements appear.
-
Failure to do so may result in orders being set aside, as demonstrated.
-
Ensure pleadings cite Section 2(7) and the explanatory clause.
-
Emphasize livelihood intent in factual matrix.
-
Anticipate that the forum will not demand full business documentation at early stages.
