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.1014/2006
SH. HANUMAN PRASAD
S/O SH. JAGGU RAM
R/O A-5/11-C, JANAKPURI,
NEW DELHI-110058
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD.
G-9, VARDHMAN TRADE CENTRE
NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDNET
Date of Order: 17.03.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The case of complainant is that he booked one shop No.VPCMG-30 in Vardhman Plus Citi Mall project of OP and paid a sum of Rs.4,75,341/- however the allotment was finally cancelled vide letter dated 04.03.2005 and OP forfeited the amount deposited by complainant on the ground that as per terms and conditions of agreement, in case of default in payment on the part of complainant, OP was entitled to forfeit upto 25% of the total cost of the unit towards earnest money and since complainant has only paid 40% of the booking amount, hence the entire amount has been forfeited. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay principal amount of Rs.4,75,341/- alongwith 12% interest and compensation of Rs.1 lakh.
OP in the reply took the plea that complainant has booked a commercial space and is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence present complaint is not maintainable and amount has been forfeited as per terms and conditions of the agreement.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the written submission of the parties.
Complainant has nowhere pleaded that he has booked the aforesaid shop for earning of his livelihood.
The ‘consumer’ is defined in Section 2(1)(d) as under:-
“(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 U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation(UPSIDC) & Anr. Vs Shyama Rani 1(2013) CPJ 738 (NC) where respondent was allotted industrial plot and it was nowhere pleaded that allotment of plot was for earning of livelihood by means of self employment and in such circumstances, complainant does not fall within the purview of ‘consumer’ under section 2(1)(d)of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Here it is relevant to refer to case of Shikha Birla Vs DLF Retailers Developers 1 (2013) CPJ 665 (NC) where it was held that complainant is purchasing shop for commercial purposes. There is no pleading nor any evidence to show that shop purchased is exclusively for purpose of her livelihood – complaint not a consumer. In case - Monstera Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. IV(2010) CPJ 209(NC), it was held that complainant was a private Ltd. company. Complainant was nominated for allotment of showroom. Possession not given. Sale deed not executed. Deficiency in service alleged. It was held that even if private Ltd. company was treated as a ‘person’, purchase of space could not be for earning its livelihood. Purchase of space was for commercial purpose.
Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 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
