ORDER                               Dated:  20.09.2016

    Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.      The complainant filed this complaint on 07-09-2016 and alleged
that she booked a virtual space of 100 sq.ft. at Plot no. 15 ,
Knowledge Park –V, Greater Noida (West) UP  for the purpose of new
business space  for a total sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-
approximately.  Accordingly complainant paid booking amount of Rs.
62,224/- vide cheque dated 05.06.2016 drawn on HDFC Bank in favour of
OP1.  Complainant received a welcome letter from OP dated 11.6.2016
wherein assured monthly return of 11.5 %  of the payments made by the
complainant till the delivery of possession was to be given to
complainant .  Later on a sum of Rs. 22,22,972/- was paid  through
cheque dated 1.7.2014 to OP1  and as per MOU between the parties
assured monthly return was paid to the complainant till 31.3.2015.  As
per MOU the assured return payable was 11 % instead of 11.5 %
therefore, this discrepancy was brought to the notice of OPs and OPs
promised to pay unpaid assured return amount to be adjusted in future
payment. Since April 2015, OPs stopped the payment of assured monthly
return to the complainant despite so many reminders and legal notice
dated 26.7.2016. OPs failed to reply which is deficiency in service on
the part of OPs. The cause of action arose on April 2015 and  it is
prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,85,196/- to
the complainant and to pay the assured monthly return to the tune of
11.5% to the complainant and to pay the compensation as well as cost
of litigation.

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

3.      In the present complaint, the complainant did not disclose
that what was the purpose of booking of business space for 100 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
business space which is a commercial purpose. 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.



4.      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 ………………..