Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1697/2017

KULDEEP SINGH RANA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

EARTH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. SINGH

03 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Arguments:  03.11.17

          Date of Decision:      07.11.17

Complaint No. 1697/2017

In the matter of:

1. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rana

 

2. Mr. Bharat Singh Rana

         S/o Shri Kundan Singh

         Both R/o: R 1385

         Mangol Puri

         New Delhi-10083.                                                                               .....Complainant

                                       

   Versus

                                                                       

                 M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited

                 Registered Office at:

                 B-100, 2^nd Floor

                 Naraina Industrial Area Phase 1

                 New Delhi-110028.

 

                 Through Mr. Atul Gupta(Director)

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

 

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGMENT

The case of the complainant is that OP induced them by false assurance that they would be given assured return of 12% per annum and possession of the apartment would be given by Sept., 2015.  The complainant booked 500 sq. ft. of space by paying Rs. 40,000/- by cheque dated 19.09.12. They paid Rs.2,35,000 on 28.09.12 through cheque and Rs. 13,75,000/- in cash on 16.10.12.  They further paid Rs.5,50,000/- through  cheque dated 20.10.14.  Later on MOU dated 25.10.12 was executed. The project was named  “Earth Tech One” , Plot No. 1 Tec Zone-1., Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.  Complainants opted for flexi payment plan. Complainants are real brothers and are drivers by profession.  Till Sept., 2015 OP paid assured monthly return and thereafter stopped the same.  Hence this complaint for directions to the OP to hand over vacant physical possession of a similar space in  the same or nearby area  and to pay assured return w.e.f. Oct., 2015. Further Rs. 12,00,000/-  has  been claimed towards physical strain and mental agony and Rs. 1,00,000/- has been claimed  for litigation charges.

2.        I  have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments on admission.  The booking is for office space. Complainants have no where pleaded that booking was for earning livelihood by self employment.   Hence the complainants are not consumers.

3.        The complainants are drivers.  They need a vehicle to earn livelihood and not office space. 

4.        Averments of assured returns denude the case of the complainant from scope of consumer as per decision of National Commission in CC No. 246/13 titled as Preeti Arora vs. KRN Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd.  decided on 06.04.17.  The complaint is dismissed in limini.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

                                                                                                      (O.P.GUPTA)

                                                                                                MEMBER(JUDICIAL)