Order No.2                                      Dated:16/01/2023           

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Perused and considered the petition of complaint.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that ‘Manro Finance & Traders Pvt. Ltd.’ is the complainant in the present case.

The Directors and the shareholders of the company are all Indian citizens. The complainant booked two units in the project under the name and style of ‘THE PYRAMID’ in the year 2015, which is being constructed by the opposite parties.

The complainant booked the said two units for residential accommodation of its Directors and officers. It is further stated that the complainant made part payment of Rs.3,09,270/- only for each flat in favour of the opposite party no.1. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties assured that the agreement for sale of the two units would be executed in future upon completion of the draft by the legal team of the opposite parties.

Thereafter as per demand of the opposite party no.1 the complainant made payment in respect of unit no.5C in Block-14 along with one covered car parking space as per payment schedule a sum of Rs.11,78,213/- only  and in respect of Unit No.4D in Block-16 along with one covered car parking space a sum of Rs.45,12,593/- only. In spite of several request the opposite parties have not executed any agreement for sale neither completed the construction nor delivered the possession of both flats in favour of the complainant till date.

The opposite parties are responsible for deficiency in service, hence this case.

On scrutiny of the record it appears that one Kamal Kumar Changia filed this case, as one of the Director of the complainant company but no resolution of the Board of Directors in his favour has been submitted at the time of institution of the case.

It is crystal clear that the complainant is a Pvt. Ltd. Co. having Directors and shareholders. The complainant Manro Finance & Traders Pvt. Ltd. Co. has booked two flats in the project named ‘THE PYRAMID’ in the year 2015, which is being constructed by the opposite parties for the purpose of residential accommodation of the Directors and the officers of the complainant Manro Finance & Traders Pvt. Ltd. Co.

So, it is apparent on the face of the record that the complainant Pvt. Ltd. Co. has booked two units (2  flats) as aforementioned for official quarters of the Directors and officers of the complainant. Hon’ble Apex Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust – Vs.- Unique Shanti Developers held that the correct approach is to see whether purchaser of goods and service, be it a commercial entity or not, has purchased the same for their own personal use and consumption of the same by other beneficiary and such purchase does not have a close and direct nexus to ordinary profit generating activities of the purchaser nor dominant intention or purpose of transaction was profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

It is settled principal of law that despite commercial activity whether a person would fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ or not would be a question of fact in every case and such question of fact ought to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.

A commercial entity may also be a consumer depending upon the facts of the case. It is not the identity of the person but the purpose for which the transaction is made which is relevant.   

According to the general rules of service, officers and employees occupying official quarters will not be entitled to receive house rent allowance in salary.

Nowhere in the complaint, it is stated that the said two Units (residential flat) would be provided to the Directors or officers of the complainant without any rent.

Human resource is an integral part of the operating requirements of a company, it is an indispensible parts of its operating requirements, without which it cannot undertake its profit generating activity. Capital expenditure for its human resource decidedly has a close and direct nexus with a company’s profit generating activity, the dominant purpose is decidedly linked to its commercial activity.

Therefore, the complainant ‘MANRO Finance & Traders Pvt. Ltd. cannot be considered  as consumer in terms of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In that view of the matter, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case and the case is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is

                                                            O R D E R E D

that the Complaint Case be and the same is dismissed.