30/06/16

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT           

This order relates to hearing on MA 657 of 2014 in CC 101 of 2013, MA 658 of 2014 in CC 95 of 2013, MA 659 of 2014 in CC 99 of 2013, MA 660 of 2014 in CC 96 of 2013, MA 661 of 2014 in CC 97 of 2013, MA 662 of 2014 in CC 98 of 2013 and MA 663 of 2014 in CC 100 of 2013 filed by the OP challenging the maintainability of the complaint cases.

It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant/OP that Bakibur Rahaman is the Complainant in all the complaint cases and he intended to purchase four flats and three shop rooms.  It is contended that the Complainant is the proprietor of rice mill and paid the entire amount from the account of the company.  It is submitted that Bakibur Rahaman is the purchaser in all the complaint cases.  It is contended that the Complainant invested more than Rs.2 crore for the commercial purpose.  The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission in case no.CC 208 of 2012 [Saavi Gupta & Anr. vs. M/s Omaxe Azorim Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]; II (2015) CPJ 342 (NC) [Indrajit Dutta vs. Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]; FA 1079 of 2014 (NC) [Govind Ram Agarwal vs. Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd.]; CC 143 of 2013 (NC) [Ved Kumari & Anr. vs. M/s Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.]; CC 111 of 2012 (NC) [Chilukuri Adarsh vs. M/s Ess Ess Vee Constructions].

The Learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that Bakibur Rahaman wanted to purchase flats for his minor sons and daughters.  It is contended that the Complainant wanted to purchase flats separately for his family members and in this connection referred to the decision reported in I (2016) CPJ 31 (NC) [Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Ors.] wherein it has been held that if the Complainant wanted her family members to stay in her vicinity, it cannot be said that flats were purchased for speculative purpose or for making profit by selling them later.

We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  Admittedly, the Complainant Bakibur Rahaman has filed all the complaint cases mentioned above and he is the purchaser.  The total value of the flats is more than Rs.1 crore although the cases were filed separately.  It is the contention of the Complainant that he wanted to purchase the flats for his minor sons and daughters, but on perusal of the pleading we find that there is no specific contention about purchase of flats for his family members separately.  Moreover, it is the contention of the Misc. Applicant that Bakibur Rahaman is the owner of the rice mill and the consideration money was paid from the accounts of the company.  Under such circumstances, relying on the decision referred by the Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant, we are of the view that the purchase of more than one flat by the Complainant is for commercial purpose and he cannot be said to be a consumer.  The decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant is not applicable in the circumstances of the instant cases. 

The complaint cases mentioned above are dismissed.  The Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of.  This order will govern all the complaint cases and miscellaneous applications as mentioned above.