18/01/16

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

            This order relates to hearing on the point of admission.

            The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant has prayed for refund of the consideration amount and the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act, 1986.  The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has referred to the decisions reported in AIR 2007 SC 2198 [Bangalore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank]; IV (2011) CPJ 1 (NC) [Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. vs. Suneja & Sons]; II (1994) CPJ 210 (Tamilnadu, SC) [Rambal Engg. Products (P) Ltd. vs. Patel Roadways Ltd.]; I (1992) CPJ 407 (Delhi, SC) [M/s S.A.S. Films vs. Bhatia Sehgal Construction Corporation & Anr.].

            It has been averred in the petition of complaint that on 05/08/11 and 29/08/11 the Complainant made payment of earnest money to the OP for booking of residential flats within the Housing Project of OP No.1.  In paragraph 13 it has been averred that in or about December 2013 the OPs invited the Complainant to sign and execute three separate agreements for sale in respect of three flats as booked by the Complainant.  It has been stated in paragraph 17 that till September 2015 there was no progress of any construction work.  Under such circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.49,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. 

            In the decision reported in 2012 (3) CPR 104 (NC) [Chilukuri Adarsh Vs. M/s Ess Ess Vee Construction] it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounts to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose.  In another decision reported in 2015 (1) CPR 692 (NC) [Indrajit Dutt vs. Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd.] it has been held that as the Complainant has purchased two flats it cannot be said to be for his residential purpose, but amounts to investment for commercial purpose and the Complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer.  Admittedly, the Complainant has booked three residential flats and, as such, the Complainant cannot be said to be a consumer. 

            Secondly, in the decision reported in 2013 (3) CPR 430 (NC) [M/s Shri Geeta Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Lodha Healthy Constructions & Developers Pvt. Ltd.] it has been held that private limited company cannot maintain consumer complaint.  In the decision reported in 2013 (2) CCC 845 (NC) [PDC Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd.] it has been held that the Complainant company was not a consumer within the definition of section 2(1)(d).  It has been held in the decision reported in 2012 (2) CPR 68 (NC) [M/s MCS Computer Service (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Allena Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.] that private limited company cannot file complaint under the C. P. Act.  The decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant having different facts and issues involved, are not applicable in the instant case. 

            Having heard the Learned Counsel and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the view that the petition of complaint is not maintainable. 

           The petition of complaint is dismissed being not admitted.