Haryana

StateCommission

CC/154/2016

SATBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSHVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

GAUARAV KHERA

01 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.154 of 2016

                                             Date of Institution: 30.05.2016                  Date of Decision: 01.07.2016

 

Satbir Singh S/o Late Suraj Bhan R/o H.NO.39, Sector-4, Rohtak.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Parsvnath developers ltd. Regd. Office parsvnath Metro Tower, Near Shahdra Metro Station, Shahdra, Delhi-110032.
2. Nirmala Devi W/o Sh.Satbir Singh R/o H.No.39, Sector-4, Rohtak (Haryana) 124001.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                      

For the parties:  Mr.Gaurav Khera, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the complainant that  he booked commercial shop-cum-office (SCF) No.8 with the opposite party No.1 on 01.07.2010 and paid Rs.2,85,000/- at that time.  It is alleged that he has deposited in all Rs.25,51,582/- (Rs.17,76,442/- as basic  cost of SCO and Rs.7,45,140/- as EDC/IDC. Opposite party (O.P.) be directed to refund the amount in question.

2.      Heard. File perused.

3.      To resolve controversy in this case section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (In short “Act”) is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-

“Definitions: - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-

          2 (i)

4. “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 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
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 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;)”

4.      From the perusal of this section, it is clear that if a person has purchased any property for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment only then he is a consumer and not otherwise.        In the present case the complainant neither purchased this property for his self-employment nor for earning livelihood.  It was only purchased for commercial purpose. It is no where alleged in the complaint that to earn livelihood or for self-employment this property was purchased.  For ready reference relevant para No.1 of the complaint are reproduced as under:-

“1.     That the complainant booked a commercial SCO  No.8 measuring 158 sq./ yards with O.P.No.1 at Parsvnath City, Rohtak on 01.07.2010 through its agent Vardhman Buildmart  Pvt. Ltd., GF-7, Indira Parkash Building-21, 12 Khamba road, New delhi-110001, and paid a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- by way of a cheque in favour of Parsvnath Developers Ltd. drawn on Axis Bank, Rohtak.”

It is clearly mentioned therein that this SCF was purchased for commercial purpose. It shows that SCF was purchased for business which is for commercial purpose and is not covered by Section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”). As per pleadings, it cannot be presumed that the SCF was purchased for self-employment.  So complainant is not a consumer and complaint is not maintainable before State Commission and complaint is hereby dismissed. These views are also fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Pradeep Singh Pahal Vs. TDI infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CPJ 1 (2016) 219.

5.      However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the Consumer Fora to seek remedy before the District Forum, if so advised.

 

July 1st, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi  Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.