ORDER                                   Dated:  15.11.2016
Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.      The complainants filed this complaint on 07-10-2016 and alleged
that they authorize Sh. Rajiv Ranjan  (Special power of Attorney) for
proper conduct of legal proceedings against OPs.   On 29.12.2012, an
MOU was executed between complainant and OP1 wherein the complainant
booked a fully furnished office space no. 2/74 on IInd Floor measuring
509 Sq. Ft. in Tower B to start their own office for their livelihood
and paid Rs 11,33,075/- against the total consideration of
Rs.21,87,203/- as per the agreement.  On receipt of  copy of agreement
they found that OPs failed to mention Rs. 4,00,000/- which they had
received in cash from the complainant and on enquiry OPs issued a
receipt of Rs. 4,00,000/- dated 15.09.2012.  OPs  assured  them that
the project shall be completed by July –August 2015 and as per the
agreement if OPs fails to handover physical possession of the said
office space then  they would be liable to make payment of Rs.
13,510/-  every month w.e.f. September 2015 till possession  but OP
failed to give possession till date and not even remitting Rs.13,510/-
 to them and even not started construction of  project “Manthan”.  So
it is prayed that OPs be directed to return Rs. 11,33,075/- to the
complainants along with interest @18% p.a. and Rs. 1,13,510/-  as
penalty/ committed returns and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.
11,000/- as cost of litigation.
2.      Heard on maintainability of the complaint and perused file.
3.      In the present complaint, complainant disclosed that they booked
the office space  for their livelihood  but they did not disclosed the
actual purpose of working. It is nowhere mentioned in the complaint
that booking of the above space was booked  by the complainant
exclusively for the purpose of earning of livelihood by means of self
employment. As everyone earns for his livelihood , therefore,
livelihood alone is not suffice to consider that such livelihood is by
means of  self employment too.
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)  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’’.
5.       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
hence present complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
6.       Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per law.
File be consigned to Record Room.