ORDER
Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date
Per Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, President
Both these complaints are between the same parties and are therefore disposed off by this common order.
The complainant has booked two flats bearing no. 212 in tower No. D plot no. 235 ( approx. 400 sq. ft.) and flat no. 237/E – 014 in the project launched by the OP namely Anant Raj Ashray Affordable Housing at Neemrana. It is the case of the complainant that the flats were to be handed over to her within a period of 30 months from the date of its booking. The complainant alleged that the OP had failed to handover the possession of these flats within the aforesaid agreed period and had thus rendered itself liable to pay a sum of Rs.2 lac each as damages under the terms and conditions of the contract signed between the parties. Since the OP had failed to pay, the complainant had approached this Forum with these complaints.
Registered notices were sent to the OP but had failed to appear and contest the complaints. The OP was therefore ordered to be proceeded with exparte. Her exparte evidence the complainant has filed separate affidavits supporting the contents of the complaints.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
At the outset we are of the opinion that both the complaints are bound to fail as there is a question as to whether the complainant qualifies as a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
The question as to whether a person who has booked more than one flats takes the services of the opposite party for commercial purposes was gone into by the National Commission in the case of Inderjeet Dutta v/s Samridhi Developers Pvt. ltd. (decided on 5.2.2015) and it observed as under:-
6.1 Learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in (III) 2012 CPJ 315 Chilkri Adarsh v/s Ess Ess Vee constructions in which it was held that when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounts to booking of such premises for commercial purposes. This Commission in [IV (2007) CPJ 199] Jagmohan Chabra ‘ and Anr. v. DLF Universal ad. also observed that when complainant has booked two flats on 2 floors he does not fall within the purview of the consumer. This Commission in Consumer complaint no. 5/2014 and 6/2014, Sunil Gupta vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. observed that consumer cannot book two different villas. In the light of the aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that as complainant has purchased two flats, it cannot be said to be for his residential purpose amounts to be investment for commercial purpose and complainant does not fall within purview of the consumer. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing application and dismissing complaint as not maintainable.
Even otherwise it appears to us that the complainant has lost her character as a consumer as she has already accepted the possession offered by the OP on 12.3.2015 without any protest or demur and therefore no further cause of action arose in her favour to file the present complaint.
A similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Jind V/s IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager Revision Petition No. 4713 of 2012 wherein it was held that:-
The petitioner cannot be allowed to accept the offer of the respondent only in part which suited their convenience and reject the condition subject to which offer was made.
In the light of above discussion we find no merits in the complaint. The same is hereby dismissed
The original order shall be kept in case file no. 211/2015 and a copy shall be kept in case no. 212/2015.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
