PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.          Counsel for the Complainant present.  The main question is whether the complainant is a consumer or not.  In para No.1 of the complaint, the complainant mentions as follows:-

“1.  That the Complainant M/s Moksh Leisure and entertainment (P) Ltd. Is a private Limited company duly registered as per the provisions of Indian Companies Act.  Shri Amit Puri working as Director and is competent and authorized to send the present note and is conversant with the facts.”

2.       It is further mentioned that the complainant wanted to open a restaurant and for that purpose the complainant approached Parsvnath Developers etc. –OP-1 and the OP-1 induced the Complainant that his Mall will be one of the best Mall in the city and all the amenities will be provided in the Mall.  It was claimed that the OP-1 will provide the amenities better than the other Malls in Faridabad.

3.          Furthermore, the prayers made in the complaint by the complainant are also reproduced as under:-

“(a)      Direct the respondents to return the amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Seventy Lacs) towards the maintenance paid by the Complaint

(b)                   Direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.4,80,00,000/- (Four Crores and Eighty Lacks) as Compensation towards the business loss and an

amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Two crore Fifty lacs) towards brand value loss.

(c)                   Direct the respondent no. 1 to fulfill the terms and conditions of agreement dated 02.08.07.”

4.       The complainant has not averred that the Company has taken the restaurant for self-employment rather it is clear that the Complainant cannot take restaurant for self-employment. In “Monsterd Estate Private Ltd. Vs. Ardee Infrastructure Private Limited 2010 C.P.J. 299 N.C.” there was delay in possession.  Complainant was nominated for allotment of showroom.  Possession was not given.  Sale deed was not executed.  Deficiency in service was alleged.  It was held that even if private limited company was treated as ‘person’, purchase of space could not be for earning its livelihood.  Purchase of space was for commercial purpose.

5.       The facts of the instant case leave no room for ambiguity.  We clap no importance to the complaint and dismiss the same.

6.          However, the complainant is given liberty to seek the help of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works v P.S.G. Industrial Institute [(1995) 3 SCC 583]” with regard to limitation.