ORDER                     Dated:  29.09.2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.       The  complainants filed this complaint on 08-09-2016 and
alleged that they booked a space of unit/office for the area
admeasuring 1000 Sq.ft. with OP and made the payment of Rs. 4,21,400/-
on 23.09.2006 ,  Rs 3,78,400/- on 15-01-2007 to the OP and obtained
its receipt.  OP demanded the payment of second installment as per
schedule but no intimation about the stage of construction was
disclosed. The office space was to be delivered within 30 months but
despite repeated requests made by the complainants to the OP but no
satisfactorily reply was given, however, OPs were offering possession
in the year 2012 and they issued third reminder on 19-02-2013 offering
possession and demanding the dues.  The complainants preferred
cancellation of booking vide letters dated 20-03-2013  and 25-09-2013
but OP failed to do so.    Hence legal notice was sent on 12-09-2014
to the OP1 for the refund of the amount with interest  but it was not
replied by the OP .  Hence, they prayed that OP be directed to refund
the amount to the complainants with 10% interest 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 complainants did not disclosed
that what was the purpose of booking of the space of unit/ office for
1000 Sq.ft.  It is no where mentioned in the complaint that the space/
unit was booked by the complainants exclusively for the purpose for
earning livelihood by means of self employment hence in our considered
opinion complainants  are not a “consumer” within the provisions of
Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

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 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 facts of the case, cause of action in this case
was arose on 20-3-2013 and 25-09-2013 when complainants sent letters
to the OP requesting for the refund which is obviously alleged  in the
para no. 17 of the complaint.  As this complaint was presented in this
forum on 08-09-2016, therefore, the complaint is time barred U/s 24 A
of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Looking to the above facts and
circumstances we are of the opinion that present complaint of the
complainant is not maintainable. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on this ……………..