State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji, Goa decided complaint case No. 13 of 2008 filed by the complainant vide order dated 26.3.2010 in following terms:-

“In view of our discussions above, and in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable before us it being beyond our pecuniary jurisdiction, and besides, the complainant having furnished improper address of the opposite party in the cause title of the complaint. Hence, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs, with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.”

Complainant has now filed the present complaint, inter-alia, alleging that OP No. 1 who is the owner of the land, engaged OP No. 2- builder/developer to raise construction on the land.  Complainant under the agreements dated 1.8.2007 for Collin Apartment for G2 on the ground floor admeasuring 95 sq. mtrs plus open balcony of 15 sq. mtrs; dated 11.9.2007 for Pravar Apartments on the ground floor having area of 42.13 sq. mtrs; dated 3.8.2007 for Joseph Apartments on the second floor bearing apartment No. S2 having area of 100 sq. mtrs.;  dated 3.8.2007 for Joseph Apartments on the first floor bearing No. F1 having area of 100 sq. mtrs; dated 1.8.2007 for Francis Apartments on the first floor apartment No. F2 having area of 85 sq. mtrs; dated 1.8.2007 for Francis Apartments on the first floor apartment No. F1 having area of 85 sq. mtrs; dated 1.8.2007 for Xavier Apartments on the first floor apartment No. S2 having area of 85 sq. mtrs.; dated 1.8.2007 for Collin Apartments on the first floor apartment No. F2 having area of 90 sq. mtrs.; dated 1.8.2007 for Collin Apartments on the first floor apartment No. F1 having area of 85 sq. mtrs.; dated 5.11.2007 for Joseph Apartments on the third floor flat No. T1 having area of 107 sq. mtrs alongwith terrace having are of 83 sq. mtrs;  dated 28.6.2007 for Pravar Apartments on the third floor having area of 258 sq. mtrs. (flat No. 301 & 302);  dated 1.8.2007 for Pravar Apartments on the second floor having area of 158 sq. mtrs (flat No. 203, 204 & 205); dated 13.6.2007 for Pravar Apartments on the Fourth floor having area of 290 sq. mtrs (flat No. 401 & 402) alongwith terrace having area of 250 sq. mtrs. which are all registered with the Sub-Registrar Tiswadi had agreed to finance and purchase the construction of the above mentioned apartments. OPs have given possession of flat Nos. Xavier S2, Collin ground floor G2, Collin F1, Collin F2, Francis F1, Francis F2, Pravar Ground floor and Pravar flat No. 201, Flat No. 202 and Flat No. 203 on the first floor to the complainants.  Balance flats and all flats in Joseph Apartments and two flats in Pravar building have not been completed till date.  OPs have not handed over the occupation certificate of even a single flat to the complainant.  It is, further, alleged that the construction of flats, the possession whereof has been delivered, suffer from numerous defects and the facilities which were agreed to be provided too have not been provided.  Copies of the approved building plans too are stated to have not been given.  Complainant seek various directions which need not be set out here at the stage of admission of the complaint.

          Since I have been of the prima-facie view that complainant not being a ‘consumer’ , the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( for short the Act),  I have heard Shri Laud on that point.

          Expression ‘consumer’ has been defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and the same reads as follows:-

“consumer” means any person who, -

(i)                 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 partly 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

(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;”

          Expression ‘defect’ has been defined in Section 2(i)(f) while ‘deficiency’  in Section 2 (i)(g).   ‘Service’ has been defined in Section 2(i)(o) of the Act.  Section 14 deals with the nature of the reliefs which may be granted by the consumer Fora in a complaint.  Reading of aforesaid Section 2(i)(d) would show that a complaint pertaining to defective goods and/or deficiency in service for any commercial purpose other than the goods bought for personal use or the services for earning livelihood by means of self-employment is beyond the purview of the Act.  Averments referred to above made in para No. 3 of the complaint would show that the complainant-financier had entered into 13 separate agreements for purchase of 16 units/flats from the opposite parties.  Obviously, the transaction is relatable to commercial purpose not being covered by the expression appended to in clause (ii) of Section 2 (i) (d).  That being the position, the complainant not being a ‘consumer’, the present complaint is not maintainable under the Act.  In the decision in Faqir Chand Gulati  Vs. Uppal Agencies  Private Ltd. & Anr.; (2008)10 SCC 345  relied on behalf of the  complainant the issue involved was totally different.   Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.