ORDER                               Dated:  27.09.2016

    Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.      The complainant filed this complaint on 29-08-2016 and alleged
that he is the director of M/s AVM  Constructions Pvt. Ltd and has
booked a office space initially in the name of the aforesaid company
for the area measuring 623sq. ft. for the consideration of Rs.
36,13,400/- with OP and made the payment of Rs. 3,25,000/- on
11.05.2012, Rs 30,000/- on 12.05.2012 , Rs 31,260/- on 17.05.2012, Rs
5,08,831/- on 16.02.2013, Rs. 5,08,831/- on 01.05.2013 and Rs
2,59,070/- on 29.12.2013 amounting to Rs. 16,50,732/- and filed the
copies of receipts and cheques regarding the same. Despite several
reminders and personal visits no intimation about the stage of
construction was disclosed by OP. Hence legal notice was sent on
01.08.2016 to the OP for the refund of the amount with interest but it
was not replied by the OP.  Hence, complainant prayed that OP be
directed to refund the amount of Rs. 16,50,732/- to the complainant
with interest @ 18% p.a. along with compensation and cost of
litigation.

2.      Heard on the maintainability of the complaint and perused complaint.

3.      In the present complaint, the complainant did not disclose
that what was the purpose of booking of office space for 623 Sq. ft.
It is no where mentioned in the complaint that the space was booked by
the complainant exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by
means of self employment hence in our considered opinion complainant
is not a “Consumer” within the provisions of section 2 (1) (d) of the
Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is obvious that complainant booked a
office space which is a commercial purpose.

4.      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)                 “  We must, therefore, hold that (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 applies 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 circumstances 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”.”

Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint must verify that the
office space booked with OP was for the use by the complainant
exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self
employment.

5.      Looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the
opinion that present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable
under Consumer Protection Act 1986. File be consigned to record room.





Announced on ………………..