Khandelia Mercantile LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Firm, incorporated under the LLP Act, 2008, having its Registered Office at Plot No.23, Industrial Area, Phase-I1, U.T., Chandigarh, through Pritam Singh Rana,

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1.Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company), having its Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1^st

2.The Managing Director, Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company), having its Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1^stFloor, Satbari, New Delhi-110074, and Corporate Office at SCO No.68, First and Second Floors, Sector 9D, Chandigarh 160009 (India).

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

Argued by:Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.    

2.           

3.           

4.           

5.           

6.           

7.            

8.            

9.           Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. It was admitted that the Complainant Partnership Firm had moved an application, for booking of a residential plot. Provisional Allotment letter dated 22.06.2011, Annexure C-9, was also issued, in favour of M/s Khandelia Mercantile LLP i.e. the Complainant Partnership Firm. IREO HAMLET-Plot Buyer Agreement dated 08.08.2011, Annexure C-14, was also executed, between M/s Khandelia Mercantile LLP/Complainant Partnership Firm Limited Liability Agreement, Annexure R-1 (Colly.), was produced, on record, by the Opposite Parties. It is evident, from thisLimited Liability Agreement, Annexure R-1 (Colly.),Limited Liability Agreement, Annexure R-1 (Colly.), or any other document. These documents also falsify the stand of the Complainant Firm, that the plot, in question, was purchased for the residential use of Devi Prasad Khandelia, its alleged Partner, and for the residential use of his family members. Thus, the plot, in question, was purchased by the Complainant, which is a Partnership Firm, engaged in manufacturing and/or dealing in oil seeds, cakes/deloiled cakes etc. etc., for using the same (plot), for commercial purpose, or for selling the same, to earn huge profits, as and when there was escalation, in prices of the real estate. InEconomic Transport Organization Vs.Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., & Anr., I (2010) CPJ 4 (SC), a Constitution Bench of the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that if the goods are purchased or the services are availed of, by the complainant, for any commercial purpose, then it does not fall within the definition of a consumer, and consequently, the consumer complaint will not be maintainable, in such cases. In, a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, similar principle of law, was laid down. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is, therefore, held that since the

10.        

11.         The Complainant Partnership Firm shall, however, be at liberty, to resort to any other remedy, which may be available to it, for the redressal of its grievance, under the provisions of law.

12.        

13.        

Pronounced.

17/06/2014

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

Rg.