Delhi

New Delhi

CC/43/2015

Trenz Drugs Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansal Properties & Industries Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.43/2015

 

M/s Trenz Drugs Pvt. Ltd.,

B-90, Sec. 46, Khirki Village,

Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

Authorized Signatory Sh. Dharam Pal Singh.

Vs.

 

 

1.          M/s Ansal Properties & Industries (P) Ltd.,

115, Ansal Bhawan,

16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.         PRO Facilities Services Pvt. Ltd.,

5, Mathura Road, Jang Pura A, New Delhi-110014.

 

              And also at:

             Ansal Chamber-1,

           3, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a Pvt. Ltd. Co. and purchased a shop bearing No.B-47, measuring 456 sq. ft. from the primary owner M/s Skymates(I) Pvt. Ltd. with  some restrictions, limitations and conditions with which the transferor had acquired the above said property from OP-1.   That because of limited rights granted in the deed of transfer the OP-1 after execution of transfer deed and transferring the various portions of the building to various persons, the OP-1  continued to be the landlord of the building and any subsequent transfer made by any original transferee or subsequent transferee is to be get authenticated from the OPs.   That since the maintenance of the building has been retained by OP-1  under its own control through OP-2, consequently, both the OPs are liable for all the damages.

2.     That the complainant had leased out the alleged portion of the building to M/s Airlink Wirless (P) Ltd. of Bangalore.  That while using the alleged portion, it was noticed that there was a water seepage problem and in this regard, an information was given to the complainant as well as OP-2.  That OP-1, who charges a sum of Rs.9030/- per quarter for maintenance is under  duty to resolve the problem  of seepage.  Non-arrangement of drainage of seeping water by OPs has put the entire building at stake because the seeping water may weaken the foundation of the building which in turn would cause the collapse of the entire building.  That the complainant requested OP-2 orally and in writing to solve the problem of water seepage in the portion of the building, even, the complainant had also sent a legal notice dated 25.9.2013 but all in vain, hence this complaint.

3.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  In its reply  OP has stated that it had constructed concerned building in the year 1985-86 and sold various units of the same.  Initially, SFML was appointed to take care of the maintenance of the building till 1.4.2009 then the said contract and responsibilities were transferred to Profac till 26.12.2014.  After that the maintenance contract w.e.f. 26.12.2014 was given to the Profac.  The alleged unit referred above was sold by APIL to Symate and lastly on 20.6.2008, was sold to the complainant.  It is admitted fact that the complainant has not obtained anything from APIL, nor contracted with APIL for the maintenance.   On 31.5.2012, the complainant rented out the unit.   It is significant to note that till 29.8.2012 there was no complaint of seepage etc. in the alleged unit. 

4.     Even in case there has been any gaps or deterioration in the water proofing done by APIL which stood the test of time as there was no damage for nearly 30 years.  As regards, APIL the construction work was carried out 30 years ago and any complaint regarding the same is hopelessly time barred.  The complainant and  tenant have illegally used the storage space as office and carried out certain renovations and additions that could have cause the damage and causing the seepage.  The rental godown is  only the source of income for the complainant, as such, it is not covered under the definition of a consumer.  OP has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

6.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

7.     Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birla Technology Ltd. Vs. Natural Glasses and Allied Service Ltd. (2011) 1 SSC 525 amendment of Section 2(1) (d) Consumer Protection Act made in 2002 w.e.f. 15.03.03 was noticed and it was held that even after amendment, if service of carrier has been availed of for any commercial purpose then the person availing the service would not be a consumer.  Consequently, the complaint will not be maintainable.  Exactly is the same situation in the present case, the complainant  has illegally used the storage space as office and carried out certain renovations and additions that could have caused the damage further causing the seepage.  The rental godown is only the source of income for the complainant, as such, it is not covered under the definition of a consumer Section 2(1) (d) Consumer Protection Act.

8.     In view of the judgment cited above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant’s Co is not a consumer, therefore, the present complaint is devoid of any merit, hence, same is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 08/02/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                 MEMBER