ORDER                                 Dated:  27.10.2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant filed this complaint on 26-06-2009 and alleged
that she was in need of commercial complex  for the growing child of
the complainant so she applied for registration of allotment of office
space in “DLF Towers-II” and paid Rs. 7,50,000/- on 06.03.2008 towards
the booking amount in the above said project.  OP provisionally
allotted  the office space no. DSH 407 with parking space no.
SHP071=DSH to her.   Accordingly, provisional allotment agreement was
signed. OP assured her  that the possession of the said office space
would be handed over to her by the end of October 2009.  It was learnt
by the complainant that the OP has no ownership initially and no
sanction of any plan to develop such project till date.  It is highly
unfair trade practice on the part of OP.   It is further alleged that
after the lapse of 15 - 16 month from the date of payment OP failed to
commence any construction of office space .   Hence on 28.03.2009
complainant sent legal notice to OP and requested to refund the entire
amount with interest  but no response was given by the OP which is
deficiency in service  on the part of OP.  So it is prayed that OP be
directed to return the entire amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the
complainant along with 18% interest p.a. and Rs. 2,00,000/-  as
compensation to the complainant.

2.     In reply, OP admitted that complainant Rs. 7,50,000/- on the
same day when she signed the application form and denied rest of the
allegations made in the complaint. OP also filed objections regarding
maintainability on  the ground that complainant is not a consumer.  As
she was allotted commercial space no. DSH 407 along with parking space
in the DLF Towers therefore she is not a consumer  hence complaint be
dismissed.

3.     The complainant   has filed rejoinder to the reply and
explained that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of
his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit.

4.     In support of reply,  OP filed affidavit of Sh. Manish Kumar
(Authorised signatory).

5.     Both the parties filed their written arguments.

6.     On 15.01.2010 complainant filed an application U/s  13 (4) of
the C. P. Act and order 11 Rule 12 and Rule 14 CPC and demanded
documents from the OP which was decided on 13.2.2015 by this forum
and the necessary documents were filed by the OP on 16.04.2015
,22.12.2015 and 21.01.2016 thereafter complainant was asked to file
his response on these documents on  10.03.2016 , 22.04.2016 and
25.05.2016 but she did not file



any response till 25.05.2016 , therefore, last opportunity was given
and matter was listed on 27.5.2016. On 27.5.2016 and 14.7.2016 as well
as on 03.10.2016 none appeared for complainant. Hence arguments of OP
heard.

7.      We have considered the arguments and considered the evidence
led by the parties and their written and oral arguments and perused
file.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

     (a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

     (b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

(c) Relief?

8.     In the present complaint, complainant disclosed that she booked
the commercial space  for her growing children but she did not
disclose the actual purpose of working. It is nowhere mentioned in the
complaint that booking of the above space was booked  by the
complainant  exclusively for the purpose of earning of livelihood by
means of self employment.

9.     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 applied 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 circumstance 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’’.

10.                   Looking to the above facts and circumstance we
are of the considered opinion that complainant is not a consumer
within the provision of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection
Act 1986 hence present complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

11.                   Copy of the order be made available to the
parties as per law.  File be consigned to Record Room.



Announced on this ……………..