CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

C.C.No.102/2016

M/S AGGARWAL AGENCIES                               -           COMPLAINANT

                                                            Vs

M/S SUPERTECH REALTORS PVT. LTD.     -                        RESPONDENT

                                                                   Date of Order: 08.07.2016

O R D E R

                This complaint has been filed by M/s Aggarwal Agencies through its Director.  The complainant has booked a residential unit in mixed use tower called SPIRA in the project of OP at Noida.  The grievance of the complainant is that OP has illegally and unlawfully charged excess amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.  Complainant has claimed refund of that amount as well as compensation.  The only point for consideration is whether complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  Ld. Counsel for complainant has referred to the judgment in case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. & Anr. Vs Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. – Civil Appeal No.1879 of 2003 decided on 09.02.2009 to show that complainant although a private limited company, is a person.  The point for consideration is whether complaint is a consumer or not.  It is significant to note that Section 2(d)(i) of Consumer Protector Act 1986  defines ‘consumer’ as under:-

“(d) ‘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 party 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 resale or for approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. 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 service for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or party promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

[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.]”

It is useful to refer to case of Pharos Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tata Motors Ltd. & Ors., IV(2014) CPJ 525.  In that case, the company purchased a car for use of its Principal Director, it was held that the car has been purchased for commercial purposes by a company and does not come within the meaning of consumer.  It is useful to refer to para(s) 12, 13 and 14 of aforesaid judgment which are reproduced as under:-

12. In Satish Kumar Gajanand Gupta V. M/s. Srushti Sangam Enterprises (India) Ltd., & Anr., III (2012) CPJ 264 (NC) – Consumer Complaint No.296 of 2011, decided by this Commission, on 3.7.2012, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Civil Appeal No.6229 of 2012, decided on 14.9.2012, upheld the order of this Commission that the petitioner was not a ‘consumer’ when he intended to purchase some permanent accommodation at Mumbai, for his stay during his business visits, from Delhi, to save on the expenditure incurred for hotels.  For that purpose he had booked two flats.
13. In M/s Purusharth Associates Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s. Uppal Housing Ltd. Plaza & Anr., III (2012) CPJ 500 (NC), this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.112 of 2012, on 5.7.2012, observed in paras 11 and 12 of its judgment, as under:-
    11. Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that these flats will be used for the officers of the Company.  Learned Counsel for the complainant could not deny that those officers would transact the commercial activity.  A bare look on this Resolution clearly goes to show that these flats would be meant for commercial purposes.
    12. The complaint being not maintainable, is therefore, dismissed.  Nothing will debar the complainant to seek remedy before the appropriate Forum, as per law.

                In view of the legal position discussed above, the complainant is not a consumer.

            (RITU GARODIA)                                                                (A.S. YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT