DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.1137/2005
Sh. B. N. Chatterjee
A-71, Shankar Garden, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
through its Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA Colony
New Delhi
2. Deputy Director (CE)
Delhi Development Authority
Commercial Estate Branch,
Vikas Sadan, INA Colony,
New Delhi ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 30.12.05 Date of Order : 30.04.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly, stated that the case of the Complainant is that the OPs advertised a scheme titled “FIRST SELF FINANCING SCHEME (COMMERCIAL FLATS) 1984” the object of which scheme was to provide flats to individuals, firms, companies etc. in the centers through financial participation of the intending purchasers. He had submitted an application on 09.04.1984 under 1st Self Financing Scheme (Commercial Flats), 1984 vide receipt No.68102 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- for allotment of commercial flat for category/ type-IV as per the terms and conditions of the scheme and brochure; that he was allotted a commercial flat in Janakpuri District Centre; that the area of flat was 79.00 sq. meter and the total estimate cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.459192.25p and he paid all the installments with the OPs. Dispute raised in the complaint is with regard to enhancement of cost of the commercial flat from Rs. 459192.25p to Rs. 20,21120/- which according to the complainant is for unjust richment from the complainant and is a prohibitive illegal demand. It is not the case of the Complainant that he had got allotted the said commercial flat for the purpose of earning his livelihood or the livelihood of any person dependent upon him for his livelihood. The OPs have taken an objection that the said flat was to be used only for commercial purpose and, hence, the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In our considered opinion, the transaction in question being commercial in nature the Complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 30.04.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 1137/05
30.4.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT