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
Case No.671/2006
M/S G.N.B. BROS. PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
C-185, VIKASPURI, DELHI-110018
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD.,
G-9, VARDHMAN TRADE CENTRE,
NEHRU PALCE, NEW DLEHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:25.04.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The complainant, a private limited company, booked unit No.G-52 at the project of OP at Vardhman Plus, City Mall, LSC, Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi. At the time of booking, OP assured complainant that the project is duly approved by ICICI and Citi Bank and complainant would get the financial facilities from those banks. However, the banks refused to give loan for the reason that the said complex is not in their approval list. Number of deficiencies have been pointed out on the part of OP. It is prayed that OP be directed to desist from grabbing the said unit of the complainant on false pretexts and also be directed to send the true copy of the permission from the concerned authorities for the construction of the said complex and thereafter complainant undertakes to pay the due amount to OP as per the orders of this Forum. It is also prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant as compensation.
OP in the reply took the preliminary objection that complainant is not a consumer as the complainant being private limited company made investment for commercial purpose and it has nothing to do with self-employment.
The only point for consideration is whether complainant is a ‘consumer’.
We have gone through the written arguments of the parties and carefully perused the record.
Complainant is a private limited company. Even as per section 2(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, complainant is not a person. Complainant has booked a commercial space hence is not a ‘consumer’ as defined in section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986:-
“(d) ‘consumer’, means any person who –
- 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
- 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 M/s Vardhman Properties Ltd. Vs Som Dutt Sharma (Revision Petition No.3754/2014 with IA/7087/2014) - In that case the complainant has booked a commercial space. It was held that “there is no evidence on record that the petitioner is covered under the exception carved out by the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the respondent is not a consumer as such he could have maintained the consumer complaint. The Foras below while allowing the complaint have lost sight of the above material aspect of the case. Therefore, their orders cannot be sustained.”
It is also useful to refer case of Monstera Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ardee Infrastructure PVt. Ltd. – IV (2010) CPJ 299 (NC) – in this case Hon’ble National Commissioner has held that:-
“Housing – purchase of space for commercial purpose – There was delay in possession. Complainant was a private limited company. Complainant was nominated for allotment of showroom. Possession not given. Sale deed was not executed. Deficiency in service was alleged. Even if private limited company was treated as ‘person’ purchase of space could not be earning its livelihood. Purchase of space was for commercial purpose”.
In view of the above, complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
