NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/194/2010

RAKESH KUMAR & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SHAAD ANWAR

01 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIFIRST APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 18/05/2010 in Complaint No. 54/2010 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. RAKESH KUMAR & ANR.D-257, Second Floor, Anand ViharDelhiDelhi2. SMT. KIRAN SINGHR/o. D-257, Second Floor, Anand ViharDelhiDelhi ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERSPrasvanath Metro Mall, Shahdara Metro Station,ShahdaraDelhi-110032Delhi ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. SHAAD ANWAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 01 Sep 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Order dated 18.05.10 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission) in complaint no. 54/2010 is sought to be challenged in the present appeal filed by the original complainants. By the ..2.. impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint at the admission stage itself without issuing any notice to the opposite party holding that the complaint was not maintainable before it as the complainants cannot be said to be the ‘consumers’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they have booked the commercial space in the project floated by the opposite party for commercial purposes rather than for residential/livelihood etc. 2. It would appear that after filing of the complaint, the complainant had moved an application in order to clarify the position that the commercial spaces/shops were purchased by them for earning livelihood by setting up an office there as one of the complainants is a practicing Advocate. The State Commission has considered the averments made in the complaint as also the facts stated in the application to dismiss the complaint by observing as under:- “ Later, the complainants filed an application stating that they had booked two shops/office space for his (not their) own livelihood. This plea has been taken as an after-thought because there is not even a whisper in the entire complaint that the shops in question were booked for earning their livelihood. This plea ..3.. now after the order on admission was reserved is taken just to bring complaint within the ambit of explanation of clause (d) of Section 2 (1) of the Act, which requires that goods obtained or services availed for commercial purposes are for earning of complainant’s livelihood by means of self-employment. Complainant No.1 is practicing advocate and complainant No.2 is a house wife, therefore, booking of shops/commercial space in the Mall in Ghaziabad by no stretch of imagination can be believed to be for purpose of earning their own-livelihood by self-employment. We, therefore, find that complainants are not the consumers to maintain the present complaint. Hence, it is rejected u/s 12 (3) of the Act at the admission stage itself.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. Since the complaint was dismissed at the admission stage itself without issuing any notice to the opposite party, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice on the appeal to the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants would assail the impugned order on the premise that though the appellants had agreed to purchase the commercial space/shops but these were meant to be used for setting up a office of appellant no.1, the legal practitioner and not for making investment for the purpose of earning profit by resale. This position was sought to be explained before the State Commission but somehow the State ..4.. Commission was not convinced and brushed aside the same by observing that it was an after thought plea which was taken to bring themselves within the ambit of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants/complainants are prepared to withdraw the present complaint and to file a fresh complaint if liberty is granted to them or to amend the existing complaint by moving appropriate application before the State Commission. We would permit them to seek amendment of their complaint by moving appropriate application. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint is hereby set aside and the complaint is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the complainant to seek amendment of the complaint. However, we make it clear that it would be within the judicial discretion of the State Commission thereafter to consider the question of maintainability of complaint and to take a view in the matter. The complainants are directed ..5.. to appear before the State Commission on 5.10.10 for receiving directions.



......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................SURESH CHANDRAMEMBER