M/s. Setia Exports Pvt. Ltd. through its Director has filed this complaint, inter-alia, alleging that M/s. Indo Arab Air Services, a partnership firm was allotted commercial space/shop No. 026 having an approximate super area of 84.84 sq. mtrs in DLF Towers to be developed by M/s. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd.- opposite party No. 1. Firm paid towards part consideration a sum of Rs. 24,94,800/- to opposite party No.1. Around September/October, 2007, the firm transferred the commercial space/shop in favour of the complainant-Co. Thereafter the complaintant made the payments of installments as detailed in para 15 of the complaint through ICICI Bank, Janak Puri branch. It is alleged that from the acknowledgement receipt dated 4.2.2008 it was revealed that amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs was adjusted under the head ‘parking’ by the opposite parties though the complainant was never interested in buying the parking space. Despite repeated requests, the opposite parties did not adjust the amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs towards the instalments of the commercial space. On 4.10.2009, the complainant received a letter from opposite party No. 2 stating that the billing for maintenance in respect of the allotted commercial space would commence from 15.10.2003. Although the complainant received a draft copy of the Tripartite Maintenance Agreement from the said opposite party but till date it has not executed any maintenance agreement. Complainant received a final notice on 11.5.2010 to take possession of the commercial space. Complainant has also received a letter dated 24.9.2010 from the opposite parties canceling the allotment of the said commercial space on ground of non-payment of maintenance charges etc. Attributing deficiency in service, declaration of cancellation of the letter dated 24.9.2010 is sought in addition to seeking direction to the opposite parties to hand over possession of the commercial space on payment of the balance purchase price or, in alternative, to refund the paid amount of Rs. 1,74,42,968.65 with interest and compensation. Since we have been of theprima-facie view that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), we have heard Shri Vachher on admission. Expression ‘consumer’ has been defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Sub-section (ii) of Section 2(1)(d) which is material is reproduced below:- “consumer” means any person who,- (i) …………………… (ii) 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 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 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.” Premises which was agreed to be purchased by the complainant is commercial space No. B-026 in DLF Towers, Jasola, New Delhi. It is not alleged in the complaint that the services for providing this space was availed of exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self-employment by the complainant. Moreover complainant could not have availed of that service exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self-employment it being a Private Ltd. Co. within the meaning of the above explanation attached to Section 2(1)(d)(ii). Since purchase of the space was for commercial purpose, the complainant would not be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and the present complaint is, thus, not maintainable under the Act. Dismissed as such. |
