Order No. 16. Date. 11.04..2022
Today is fixed for passing order in respect of MA no. 216/2020 filed by the OP. The matter was last heard on 29.03.2022 when Advocates of both parties were present..Ld. Advocates of both sides put their respective submissions. W/O has been filed by the complainant. While perusing the instant MA petition it is observed that the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint petition on the ground of non maintainability because of the following reasons :
- The complainant is not a consumer under the definition of consumer under section 2(d) of the C.P .Act, 1986.The complainant is carrying on Jewelry business from the shop which is the subject matter of dispute. There is no averment in the complaint petition that the complainant is running the business from the shop for gain by means of self employment and for his livelihood only.
- The complaint petition is not maintainable since the company viz ‘Alisha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. has not been impleaded as a necessary party as the agreement dated 07.10.2006 was executed in between the Alisha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant..
- At that point of time the value of the complaint petition exceed the financial jurisdiction of the Commission.
- The complaint involves complicated question of facts and law being not entertainable under summary proceedings.
- The petition is barred by law of limitation.
The OP has cited the case laws of Hon’ble NCDRC under CC No. 665 of 2017 decided on 27.03.2017 in the matter of Navin Kumar Vs M/S Omaxe Ltd. where the Hon’ble NCDRC has been pleased to observe that the definition of consumer has an inbuilt exception which provides that if the goods are bought or the service is hired or availed for commercial purpose the person concerned shall be excluded from the definition of consumer.
More over the submission of the complainant in the complaint petition is that due to non execution and registration of the deed of conveyance by the OP, the petitioner suffer heavy loss and damage in the business and could not expand the business and run the business peacefully.
The complainant has got possession of the shop against his old tenancy for which he has paid no consideration money. Since execution of the agreement has been made between the parties without any consideration money and status of the complainant is tenant the complainant is not coming under the purview of the definition of consumer as per C.P.Act, 1986 as well as C.P. Act, 2019.
While perusing the WO filed by the complainant it is observed that the complainant strongly objected the plea of the OP in the issue of non joinder of parties since the OP is representing the company itself. As per submission of the complainant the OP is demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- for registering the property in favour of the complainant which is not in accordance with the registered agreement dated 07.10.2006 in between the parties. We do not find any other effective submission on the part of the complainant.
Considering both the submission of the OP as well as the complainant we are of the view that the OP has rightly established his case against the complainant.. The complainant has no where mentioned in the complaint petition that the shop is made for his livelihood and no proof in regard to that has been furnished. The shop is being run purely on commercial purpose and there was no consideration money involved in the agreement in between the parties dated 07.10.2006 for which the complainant is not coming under the purview of the definition of consumer as per C.P. Act,1986 as well as 2019. In view of the above reason the case cannot be adjudicated by this Commission.
Hence the consumer complaint case no CC 44/2020 fails.
The MA petition no.216 of 2020 filed by the OP is thus disposed off.
