CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.631/2010

M/S SRIRAM & SON

SHRI RAJINDER MOHAN

751, CHANDNI CHOWK,                       

OPPOSITE TOWN HALL,

DELHI-110006

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

VS.

M/S OMAXE LIMITED,

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/

PRINCIAPL OFFICER, HAVING REGD. OFFICE AT

7-LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE,

KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019

………….. RESPONDENT

                                                                                                                                                            Date of Order: 20.11.2015

O R D E R

This order shall dispose of an application moved by OP under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the complaint.   It is stated in the application that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as in this case complainant approached OP to take a shop in the project of OP vide letter of offer dated 11.8.2006 and agreed to get the shop on lease for his business purpose.  The said letter of offer provides that a lease will be created in respect of the said shop in favour of the complainant for running of an Apparel Showroom.  From the above said facts, it is apparently clear that the purpose for taking the said shop was commercial.  As the complainant has accepted the said letter of offer for creating a lease in respect of the said shop for running a Apparel Showroom under the name of “Sri Ram & Sons” only for the commercial purpose thus as per the said definition is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.

Complainant filed reply to this application denying averments made in the application and stated that in fact moving of this application is abuse of process of law. 

In brief the complainant is a partnership firm and Sh. Rajinder Mohan is its registered partner.  The complainant had signed a proposal letter dated 12.5.2006 to get a show room on lease and deposited a sum of Rs.2.10 lakhs with OP on 12.5.2006.  OP issued a Letter of Offer on 1.8.2006 to complainant for purpose of creating a lease for the aforesaid Apparel Showroom in the shop defined as Shop No.FF-30, 1^st Floor in the future project of the Commercial Complex of OP.  Complainant further deposited remaining security of Rs.3,89,154/- vide cheques dated 01.9.06 and 25.10.06 and thus deposited a total sum of Rs.5,99154/-.  Complainant received a letter dated 28.6.08 from OP intimating that construction of the project was in full swing and assured about the delivery of possession of the said premises on due date mentioned in clause 16(a) of the letter of offer i.e. July 2009.  But OP had failed to intimate anything about the date of such delivery of possession of the projected premises inspite of lapse of date of such delivery of possession long ago thus resulting in serious mental agony and financial setback to the plans of the complainant. 

We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant.   Admittedly, complainant booked a commercial space.  So on the face of it, complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which defines ‘consumer’ as under:-

“(d) ‘consumer’, means any person who –

1. 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 party 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 resale or for approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. 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 service for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or party promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of 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.]”

Hon’ble National Commissioner in Monswtera Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ardee Infrastructure PVt. Ltd. – IV (2010) CPJ 299 (NC) has held that:-

“Housing – purchase of space for commercial purpose – There was delay in possession.  Complainant was a private limited company.  Complainant was nominated for allotment of showroom.  Possession not given.  Sale deed was not executed.  Deficiency in service was alleged.  Even if private limited company was treated as ‘person’ purchase of space could not be earning its livelihood.  Purchase of space was for commercial purpose”.

There is no averment made in the complaint that this commercial space was booked by the complainants for earning their livelihood.  Even otherwise complainant being a partnership concern, there is no question of shop being taken for earning its livelihood.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed.

The copy of order be sent to complainants and OP by post.  File be consigned to Record Room.

         (D.R. TAMTA)                                                                     (A.S. YADAV)

            MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT