ORDER                                 Dated:  28-10-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant  has filed this complaint on 04.10.2016 and
alleged that she booked  unit no. 5/65B  at “Manthan” admeasuring 510
sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs.12,27,500/- in OP’s above  project .
As per MOU  OP was to pay complainant Rs 25,859/- every calendar month
till offer of possession.  Accordingly, till 20.03.2013  the said
money was received thereafter this payment was stopped.  Despite, so
many efforts  and legal notice regarding this above payment no
response was given by the OP.  It is alleged that the cause of action
arose  when OP stopped the monthly payment and when the construction
could not be started as promised.    Therefore, it is prayed that OP
be directed to make the monthly returns to the complainant as per MOU
with interest @ 18% and to pay the compensation for mental harassment
and any other relief  which this forum deems fit.

2.     Heard arguments on the maintainability of the complaint.

3.     In support of the complaint, learned counsel for the
complainant relied on the judgments passed by Hon’ble National
Commission in the case  no. 162/2009 dated 21.01.2013  titled as Sh.
Mukul Dalmia V/s DLF Commercial Developers Ltd  and in  case no.
31/2008 dated 19.01.2015 titled as Ashok Thapar V/s Supreme Indosaigan
Associates & Anr.

4.     Considered the arguments and perused complaint and judgments.

5.  Mere perusal of the complaint clarify that the cause of action
arose on one month after 20.03.2013 where through OP has stopped the
payment of Rs. 25,589/- on 20.04.2013 as per the terms and conditions
of the MOU.  This complaint is filed on 04.10.2016. Hence, the
complaint is filed after three years and five months  without
application for condonation of delay i.e. after  the expiry of period
of limitation as prescribed U/s 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act
1986.   It is pertinent to mention herein that  the complainant
booked  a commercial space of 510 sq. ft. and she was getting a
monthly payment of Rs. 25,589/- every calendar month till 20.03.2013.
It clarify that the purpose of booking was to gain the profit  from
the OP.     It is nowhere mentioned in the complaint that booking of
the above space was  book  by the complainant  exclusively for the
purpose of earning of livelihood by means of self employment.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Laxmi Engineering Works V/s PSG
Industrial Institute, AIR 1995 SC 1428 in Para no. 24 held as under.

    (i)the explanation added by the Consumer Protection (Amendment)
Act 50 of 1993 (replacing Ordinance 24 of 1993) with effect from
18.06.1993 is clarificatory in nature and applied to all pending
proceedings.

   (ii)Whether the purpose for which a person has bought goods is a
‘commercial purpose’ within the meaning of the definition of
expression ‘consumer’ in section 2 (d) of the ACT is always a question
of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstance of each case.

   (iii)A person who buys goods and use them himself, exclusively for
the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment is
within the definition of the expression ‘’consumer’’.

7. Looking to the above facts and circumstance we are of the
considered opinion that complainant is not a consumer within the
provision of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and
the present complaint is time barred by limitation prescribed U/s 24 A
of Consumer Protection Act, hence present complaint of the complainant
is not maintainable in this forum.   File be consigned to Record Room.



Announced on this ………………