STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,     

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur D/o Lt. Sh. Khushwant Singh W/o Sh. Gurpreet Singh Khaira R/o 3038, Sector 19D, Chandigarh through her Power of Attorney Mrs. Smt. Mohinder Kaur W/o Sh. Khushwant Singh R/o House No.3038, Sector 19D, Chandigarh.

                                                      VERSUS

1.Makkar Properties through its owner Kaniya Lal Makkar of Makkar Properties, Office at 1360, Sector 22B, Chandigarh.

2.M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited Company through its Managing Director at Registered Office at 9, Kasturba Candhi Marg, New Delhi 110001. 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

Argued by:Sh. M. S. Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for Opposite  

Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

6.          7.            

8.           

9.           

10.        

11.          

12.        

13.        

14.        

15.             The first question, which arises for consideration, is, as to whether this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. The answer to this question, is in the affirmative. The total price of the flat, in question, is Rs.27,00,000/-. The complainant has sought allotment of the said flat apart from refund of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @22% per annum; Rs.5 Lacs as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment etc. Since the value of the services and compensation claimed by the complainant, as per Section 17 of the Act, exceeds Rs.20 Lacs but not Rs.1 Crore, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Therefore, this plea of the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, does not hold good and stands rejected.

16.             The next question, which arises for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. 

17.        

(i)

(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;

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;” 

18.        , Consumer Complaint No.111 of 2012, decided on 02.07.2012, it was held by the National Commission, that even if a person, who had booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounted to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose. Similar principle of law, was laid down by the National Commission inJag Mohan Chhabra & Anr. Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., IV (2007) CPJ 199 (NC).       means that the same were purchased by way of investment and, as such, the transaction involved commercial purpose, which has been excluded from the purview of the definition as given in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) w.e.f. 15.3.2003.

19.

20.        

21.        

22.        

23.        

24.        

25.        

Pronounced.

20^th

^Sd/-

 ^{[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]}

^PRESIDENT

^Sd/-

^{[DEV RAJ]}

^MEMBER

^Ad

STATE COMMISSION

(Consumer Complaint No.65 of 2013)

Argued by:Sh. M. S. Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for Opposite  

 Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for Opposite Party 

Dated the 20th day of December, 2013

^ORDER

2.           

3.          

Ad