We have heard Shri. R. Bras de Sa, lr. advocate of the complainants at the stage of admission of this consumer complaint. 

2.    The complainants are British Nationals, having Indian origin cards.  They had business of property management and investment.

3.     The complainants purchased plot Nos. 90,91,92,94 and 95 from OP No. 1 and have built their house thereon.  The complainants have also purchased plot Nos. 69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75 by sale deed dated 7/05/07 and since then the complainants have also got a new sub division No., namely 31/1-A.  The said seven plots have on southern side an eight meter wide road, while plot No. 69 on its northern side is abutted by a three meter road also meant for the use of plot No. 70.  The layout plan of the said plots is at page 86 as well as at page 117 where the layout of the entire project known as Aldeia de Goa of OP No. 1 can be seen.

4.     The areas of the said seven plots are given by the complainant in para four of the complaint and the smallest of them is plot No. 72 admeasuring 369 sq.mtrs and the largest is plot No. 17 admeasuring 528.75 sq.mtrs.  The total area of the said seven purchased by the complainants is 3137 sq.mtrs. 

5.     As  per  the  complainants,  OP  No. 1  by  agreement  of  sale dated    13/12/03   and   sale   deed   dated    7/5/07,    had    offered

services/associated with developed plots to the complainants which included a motorable access, maintenance facilities, etc as represented in the brochures.  The complainants stated that recently around mid- November/early December, 2013 the complainants came to know about various obstructions/encroachments carried out by OP No. 1 on the three meter wide access available to the plot Nos. 69 and 70 and also within plot Nos. 70 and 75 which works were carried out by OP No. 1 under the personal supervision of Brigadier Puri and that inspite of pursuing the matter with him, he has refused to remove the obstructions and hindrance on the said three meter wide access and within plot Nos. 70 and 75, and, as such the complainants appointed Architect Shri. S.N. Bhobe and obtained

from him a technical report, and, which shows a RCC water tank has been constructed within the space of the said three wide and 25 meters long road leading to plot No. 70 as a result of which the access to plot No. 70 is blocked fully and access of plot NO. 69 is blocked from its 25 meters long northern boundary, etc.  The said Architect has also opined that the said works adversely affect the plot Nos. 69, 70 and 75. 

6.    The complaints have been filed by the complainants essentially for a direction to the OPs to remove all the encroachments of the said three meters wide and 25 meters long road to plot No. 69 and encroachment within plot No. 70 and 75 and also for reliefs of declaration and compensation.

7.     The complaint was taken up for admission on 10/2/15 and that time doubts were expressed whether the complainants are consumers to file the present complaint within the meaning of Section  2(1)(d)(ii)  of  the  C.P.  Act,  1986,  the  complainants  having

purchased 7 plots in addition to the 5 plots which they have purchased.

8.     Shri. R. Bras de Sa, the lr. advocate then sought time to amend the complaint and since then he has carried out an amendment to say that the said 7 plots namely 69 to 75 were purchased by the complainants for their two sons, Kamal and Paresh and grand children. 

9.     At the time of admission Shri. Bras de Sa, the lr advocate has placed reliance on LDA vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994(1)SCC 243 and submitted that the complainants are consumers and the OP No. 1 who is a developer is a service provider and as such the complaint is maintainable. 

10.     We are unimpressed with the submissions made by Shri. Bras de Sa, the lr. advocate of the complainants. 

11.   The amendment carried out by the complainants lacks bonafides and has not at all changed the complexion of the complaint. 

12.     The complainants have stated in para 9 of the complaint that several purchasers who had come to purchase the aforesaid land from the complainants refused to purchase the same due to water sumps being built under the three meter wide access leading up to plot No. 70 and other encroachment within plot No. 70 and 75 and this fact was brought to the notice of Brigadier Puri by email dated 11/01/14 who refused to redress the situation.  The complainant further stated, in the said para, that they came to know of the construction of water sumps and other encroachment only when interested purchasers abandoned the idea of purchasing the plots of

the complainants on account of the obstruction, hindrance to the access and encroachments of the plots.  The said email dated 11/01/14 (copy at page 113) has also been reproduced by the complainants in para 9 of the complaint and reads as follows:

“At this stage we were selling the plots not knowing that there were water sumps built underneath the access road.  We only came to know about this construction when the purchasers informed us of the same stating that they cannot purchase the plots due to the above reason. “

“In the meantime we had another purchaser who was willing to purchase the plots to whom morally and ethically we had to inform about the water sumps constructed by the Aldeia Management.  The purchasers were also reluctant to purchase with water sumps underneath the 3 meter wide access road.”

“ There is one move prospective purchaser who might come to see the plots in early February and we would not want them not purchase because of the water sumps underneath the areas road.”

13.     The complainants in their legal notice dated 6/10/14 also reproduced the contents of the said letter written by the complainants to the said Brigadier Puri.

14.     The complainants have purchased 7 plots in addition to the 5 plots on which they have constructed their house.  The complainants are in the business of property management and investment.  When a person purchases more than one plot it can be safely inferred that it is not purchased for his own use but for a commercial purpose.  The evidence on record, to which we have already made reference, clearly shows that the complainants had purchased the 7 plots in question   for   resale,   and,   as   such  for a commercial purpose and

therefore the complainants cannot be termed to be consumers within the meaning of that expression given in Section 2(1)(d)(i) or (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.  We have also taken a consistent view that when a purchaser buys more than one flat it is for investment or commercial purpose.  The same principle needs to be applied here. (see Smt. Madhu Saigal, 2014(3) CPR 265)

15.     Consumer jurisdiction is some sort of one way street.  It is meant only for consumers, and not to others.  Complainants are not consumers, they having purchased the said 7 plots for the purpose of resale and as such the complaint filed by them cannot be admitted.  The complainants are free to seek the reliefs sought before

the Civil Court or any other Forum and for that they may take the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as held by the Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering (II 1995 CPJ (1)).