Punjab

Tarn Taran

CC/51/2020

Jugraj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

KIM Infrastructure - Opp.Party(s)

H.S Sandhu

27 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,ROOM NO. 208
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX TARN TARAN
 
Complaint Case No. CC/51/2020
( Date of Filing : 07 Sep 2020 )
 
1. Jugraj Singh
Jugraj Singh aged 27 years S/o Late Nishan Singh, R/o 101, Jhabal Road, Village Kazikot, Tehsil and Distt Tarn Taran,
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. KIM Infrastructure
KIM Infrastructure & Developers Ltd. Registered & Corporate Office at 1307, Hemkunt House, 6- Rajinder Place, New Delhi 110008 through its MD.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh.Charanjit Singh PRESIDENT
  Mrs.Nidhi Verma MEMBER
  SH.V.P.S.Saini MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
For the complainant Sh. H.S. Sandhu Advocate
......for the Complainant
 
For the Opposite Party Exparte.
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 27 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant is an adhoc employee of the department and he received benefits of employment of his father after his death who was serving in Indian Army and from these monetary benefits he invested Rs. 10 Lacs with the opposite party with deals in investment Business which relates to investment in property etc. by receiving capital/ investment from general public and assuring the investors with the return in form of cash or property after fixed period. The opposite party had announced that it has property worth crores of rupees and the investors need not to worry about their investment and as such full assurance and guarantee was given by the opposite party to the investors and to the complainant also. The opposite party after receiving Rs. 10 Lakh from the complainant issued a lump sum payment receipt having serial No. 0101T0683060 qua the agreement No. 0101F0005047 dated 25.7.2013 and as per this receipt the complainant was to be paid minimum realizable value of Rs.20 Lakh after the date of completion of investment i.e. on 24.10.2019. The complainant made Baljinder Kaur his mother as nominee in the investment made by him with the opposite party which was of a period of 6 years approximately. After the completion of investment period, the complainant approached the opposite party alongwith his lump sum payment receipt issued by this party to receive an obtained Rs. 20 Lakh from this party and the opposite party assured the complainant that this amount of Rs. 20 Lakh will be paid to him in a fortnight, so the complainant awaited for this period but no payment was given by the opposite party to the complainant and as such, the complainant visited the opposite party several times to receive the payment but the opposite party delayed it on one pretext or the other. The complainant has prayed that the following relieves may be granted in favour of complainant.

  1. The opposite party may kindly be directed to release the maturity amount of investment i.e. Rs. 20 Lakh to the complainant immediately.
  2.  The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for causing harassment to the complainant and also be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, self attested copy of lump sum payment receipt dated 25.7.2013 Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of Jamabandi for the year 2014-15 Ex. C-3.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party and consequently, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte.

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the documents on the file.

4        In the present case, the complainant has pleaded that for the monetary benefits, he invested Rs. 10 Lacs with the opposite party which deals in investment Business which relates to investment in property etc. by receiving capital/ investment from general public and now we have to observe that this complaint is maintainable before this commission or not.   As per pleadings, the complainant has invested the money  with the opposite party for monetary benefit . Said transaction/ investment falls in commercial purpose for earning profits. Complainant is not a 'consumer', as services were not hired for personal purposes by the complainant and those were hired for commercial activities only.

5        We are of this view that complainant is not proved to be a 'consumer' of the opposite party. The definition of 'consumer' has been provided under Consumer Protection Act, "consumer" means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly prom­ised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

 Explanation :- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by  him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

It is, thus, evident that the explanation appended with above Section of the Act makes it clear that  'commercial purpose' does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

6        The transaction in this case is clearly relating to business activities and it would fall in the category of commercial purposes, which have been taken out of the purview of Consumer Protection Act. We refer to law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in "Shailaja Finance Ltd.. Versus.. GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd and another", in C.C No.117 of 2014, decided on 07.05.2014. 

7        In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable before this commission. The parties are left to bear their own costs.  Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

27.02.2024

 
 
[ Sh.Charanjit Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Mrs.Nidhi Verma]
MEMBER
 
 
[ SH.V.P.S.Saini]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.