Delhi

StateCommission

CC/837/2015

SH. VIKASH KUMAR SINGH & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EARTH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                 Date of Decision: 07.10.2015

Complaint Case No. 837/2015

In the matter of:

1. Sh. Vikash Kumar Singh

S/o Sh. Rana Pratap Singh

R/o 20/13A, Beli Road

New Katra

Allahabad-211002           

2. Smt. Shweta Singh

W/o Sh. Vikash Singh

R/o 20/13A, Beli Road

New Katra

Allahabad-211002                      Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Earth Infrastructure Ltd

R/o 26, 1^ST Floor, Pusa Road

Adj Karol Bagh Metro Station

New Delhi-110005

2. Managing Director

M/s Earth Infrastructure Ltd

R/o 26, 1^ST Floor, Pusa Road

Adj Karol Bagh Metro Station

New Delhi-110005

3. Mr. Altaf Hussain

AGM-Sales and Marketing          Opposite Parties

                                                               

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                -                       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

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

        Heard on admission.

        The case of the complainant is that he booked a commercial space with M/s Earth Infrastructure Ltd (in short the OP) measuring 100 sq. ft. in a project named Earth Sky Gate, situated at Sector-88, Gurgaon, Haryana. Sale consideration was Rs. 45 Lacs. It was also agreed that in case 60% of the offered price is deposited within a period of two months from the date of booking, the complainant would be entitled to assured return of Rs. 12% p.a. of the deposited amount, till the date of possession. Complainant allegedly deposited an amount of Rs. 27 lacs. Grievance of the complainant is that the OP vide letter dt. 09.01.2015 allotted him another unit measuring 124 sq. ft. in place of 180 sq. ft. allotted initially. Complainant has further prayed for refund of the aforesaid amount alongwith interest.  Besides this, assured return of 12% of the deposited amount (which comes to Rs. 29,700/-) is also sought.

        Perusal of the entire complaint shows that it is not the case of the complainant that he got booked the commercial space for earning his livelihood and for the purpose of his self employment. Expression ‘consumer’ has been defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced below:

       “consumer” means any person who,-

1. 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
2.           ³[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 ³[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 ¹[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
5. [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;]

        In the absence of any plea to the effect that the complainant wanted the space in question for the purpose of his self employment, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’. Complaint is hence dismissed in limini.

        Copy of the order be made available to the complainant free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

(f)