1. Shree Sharda Chains Pvt. Ltd. has filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party builder in respect of builder buyer agreement entered into by the parties pertaining to purchase of a shop in the proposed shopping mall, “Parsvnath Mall” undertaken to be developed by the opposite party on plot No.1B2, Twin District Centre, Sector-10, Rohini, Delhi. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant on the issue of locus standi of the complainant to file the consumer complaint. -2- 3. The term “Consumer” is defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads thus: - “(d) "consumer" means any person who— 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 purposes; 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. On bare reading of the above it is clear that consumer is a person who buys goods or hires or avails of services for consideration but does not include a person who buys goods or hires or avails of services for commercial purpose. -3- Admittedly, in the instant case the complainant company has entered into an agreement for purchase of a hop in a shopping mall for running jewellery business. Therefore, it is clear that the services of the opposite party were hired or availed by the complainant company for commercial purpose. So far as explanation giving restricted meaning to the “commercial purpose” is concerned, its requirements are that the complainant ought to have availed the services of the opposite party exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self-employment. Undisputedly, complainant is a private limited company and not a natural person. The use of the words “livelihood by means of self-employment” makes it explicit that the explanation is applicable only to the cases in which the complainant is a person. In my view, the explanation is of not avail to the complainant is the complainant is a juristic person. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that shop in question was booked by the complainant company with the intention to use the same for sale of jewellery items with a view to earn livelihood for the Directors of the company and not with the intention of reselling the same on profit. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of Harsolia Motors (supra) it cannot be said that the complainant company had hired services of the opposite party for commercial purpose. -4- Counsel for the complainant has referred to paras 12 & 13 of the aforesaid judgment, which are reproduced as under: - “At the outset, it is to be stated that an insured who takes the insurance policy cannot trade or carry on any commercial activity with regard to the insurance policy taken by him. Under Sec.3 of the Insurance Act, 1938, no person is permitted to carry on business of insurance unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Insurance Recovery and Development Authority. Further, hiring of services of the Insurance Company by taking insurance policy by Complainants who are carrying on commercial activities cannot be held to be a commercial purpose. The policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity for the loss which may be suffered due to various perils. There is no question of trading or carrying on commerce in insurance policies by the insured. May be that insurance coverage is taken for commercial activity carried out by the insured.” 6. On careful perusal of the judgment in the matter of Harsolia Motors, (supra) I am of the view that the aforesaid judgment is based upon its own distinct facts relating to an insurance contract. In the instant case it is undisputed that the complainant is a private limited company and it had booked a shop in a commercial project undertaken by the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that main object of the complainant company as per the copy of memorandum of association placed on record is as under: - -5- “To carry on the business of manufacturers of various types of chains made from gold, silver, other precious and semiprecious metals and to deal in, manage, purchase or otherwise acquire and sell, dispose of, import, export, exchange, hold and deal in diamonds, gems, stones, jewellery, bullion, precious metals, precious stones, pearls, coins, cups, medals, valuables, shields, silver, gold curios articles of virtue, art and antiques, and to establish factories for manufacturing goods for the above business.” 7. On bare reading of the above, it is clear that the object of the complainant company is to carry on the business of manufacturer of various types of jewellery etc., its import and export and it is clear that the shop was booked with the intention to promote that object. Thus, only irresistible conclusion on the basis of the allegations in the complaint is that the services of the opposite party were engaged for commercial purpose, as such the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer. Consequently, the complainant has no locus standi to maintain this consumer complaint. Complaint is accordingly rejected. | 
