DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.1138/2005

Smt. Swatantra Chopra

W/o Sh. Raghbir Chander Chopra

R/o A-101, Shanker Garden,

Najafgarh Road,

New Delhi-110018                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Delhi Development Authority

          through its Chairman

Vikas Sadan, INA Colony,

New Delhi

2.       Dy. Director (CE)

          Delhi Development Authority (CE)

          Commercial Estate Branch,

          Vikas Sadan, INA Sadan,        

          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. She  had booked a commercial flat with the OPs under “First Self Financing Scheme (Commercial Flats), 1984” and paid Rs.20,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the scheme and brochure;  that she was allotted a commercial flat in Janakpuri District Centre; that the area of flat was 40-42 sq. meters and the total estimated cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.2,36,808/- and she 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. 2,36,808/- (at some places Rs. 459192/-) to Rs. 19,26,538/- (at some place Rs. 1143886 or Rs. 3403890/-) which according to the complainant is illegal, arbitrary and against public interest.  It is not the case of the Complainant that she had got allotted the said commercial flat for the purpose of earning her livelihood or the livelihood of any person dependent upon her 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. 1138/05

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