STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA.

                                                Complaint No.42 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution: 16.04.2015                         Date of Decision: 29.04.2015

Nand Kishore S/o Sh.Net Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Pillukhera Mandi, District Jind.

 …..Complainant

                                      VERSUS

1. The Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. The Secretary-cum-Executive Officer, Market Committee, Sector-20, Panchkula.

     …..Opposite parties

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.Divay Sarup, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the complainant that he applied for allotment of shop on free hold basis in the Air Conditioned, Four Storied Agro Mall with Two tier basement, parking in Sector-20, Panchkula, as per applications invited by the Opposite Parties (O.Ps.).  He deposited Rs.30,81,620/- as 25% of total price of the shop i.e. Rs.1,23,26,563/- alongwith the application.  He was allotted shop No.87 vide allotment letter NO.702 dated 22.06.2009. 75% of tentative amount was to be paid in six half yearly installments with interest @ 15%. He had already deposited two installments. Total amount is deposited to the tune of Rs.61,63,268/-.  It was told at the time of allotment that the possession would be delivered within very short period.  More than six years have passed but even then possession is not delivered.  He filed CWP No.13306 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.08.2012 wherein it was told by the O.Ps. that construction work had been allotted to M/s S.G. Constructions on 29.03.2012.  More than two years have passed after that order but possession is not delivered.  Rs.61,63,668/- deposited by him be returned alongwith the interest @ 18% besides compensation for mental harassment and legal expenses.  The shop in question was purchased for self employment and he falls in the definition of consumer.

2.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

3.      As per averments raised by complainant it is clear that he purchased shop for the commercial purposes.  The value of the shop was Rs.1,23,26,563/-.  It cannot be presumed that such heavy amount was invested for the purpose of self-employment only.  Self-employment means when little amount is invested for livelihood as mentioned in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”).  It is no where alleged that he invested this  money for earning livelihood.  More so as per Annexure C-1 it is clear that the letter was sent to him at the address of firm known as M/s Kirori MaL Net Ram, Shop No.260, Pillu Khera (Jind). Complainant is son of Net Ram. It shows that their family is already involved in business and to expand the same. This shop was purchased, otherwise he would not have come from Jind to Chandigarh.  So he is not covered by the definition of consumer and complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. Hence the complaint is hereby dismissed at the time of admission on this ground only.

S.K.