Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1434/2016

M/S IDEA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NARENDER VASHISHTA

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI   

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                              Date of Arguments: 14.12.16

     Date of Decision: 19.12.16

 

Complaint No. 1434/16

In the matter of:

 

M/s Idea Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.

Through its authorised representative/ Director V.N.Kayal

R/oS-46, Second Floor, Greater Kailash-II

New Delhi-110048.                                          …..Complainant

 

 

                                                Versus

 

M/s DLF Universal Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

Regd. Office DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                          ……Opposite party

                 

 

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

         

JUDGEMENT

 

            The case of the complainant is that it is private limited company, it booked office space of 1802 sq. ft.at basic selling price of Rs.15,000/-in Prime Towers, Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi and paid Rs.27,55,390/- vide cheque dated 27.02.13.  On enquiry the OP informed that there were financial problems from various authorities.  In the event of  permission being denied the OP would return the entire amount with interest at the rate at which OP was charging from the complainant i.e. 18% per annum.  Allotment letter was issued on 04.03.13 showing that office space DPT315 and Parking No. PB1103 was allotted.. Agreement to sell recited actual covered area of 1171 sq. ft., Rs. 16,55,045/- has become due as interest from 28.02.13 to 30.06.16.  Hence this complaint for refund of the amount alongwith interest, Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs. 55,000/- as cost of proceedings and future interest.

2.        Perusal of the complaint reeal that booking of commercial space which is not covered under Consumer Protection Act.  There is no iota of avernment that booking was for earning livelihood by means of  self employment.

3.        In fact no aforesaid avernments have been made because complainant is a company which is a justice person and not a natural person. In Richa Company vs. DLF United Ltd. IV 2012 CPJ 597 National Commission held that purchase of space by partnership is for commercial purpose and not covered under Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint is dismissed in limini.

            Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                         (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)