Delhi

StateCommission

CC/413/2016

BINDIYA SAHI & ANR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PRAVEEN AGGARWAL

11 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 11.05.2016

Date of Decision : 18.05.2016

Complaint No. 413/16

 

In the matter of:

1. Mrs. Bindiya Sahi,

W/o Shri Rishi Sahi,

House No.22, Jangpura-A,

New Delhi-110014.

 

2. Rishi Sahi,

S/o Vidya Bhushan Sahi,

House No.22, Jangpura-A,

New Delhi-110014.                               ........Complainants

 

Versus

1. The Managing Director,

Whole Time Director/

Executive Director,

Raheja Developers Limited,

Corporate Office,

Office Space # 406, 4^th Floor,

“Rectangle – One”,

D-4, District Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.

 

2. Raheja Developers Limited,

Corporate Office,

Office Space # 406, 4^th Floor,

“Rectangle – One”,

D-4, District Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.                             ….....Opp. Parties

                                                                

CORAM

 

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The case set up by complainant is that complainant-1 is housewife and complainant-2 is the husband of complainant-1. Complainant-1 paid money to OP to start a small shop to become independent so as to augment income from her earnings in the kitty of family expenditure. Complainant-2 was interested that complainant-1 should become financially independent, so he augmented finance to purchase the shop. The complainants booked commercial space / shop No.97 on ground floor of Raheja Trinity, Sector-84, Gurgaon, Haryana and paid Rs.6,73,980 on 31.01.2014. They paid Rs.10,10,970/- on 16.04.2014 and Rs.4,15,896/- on 31.07.2014.  Total payment made by them comes to Rs.21,00,846/-. Now, the complainants have sought refund of the said amount alongwith interest @18% and Rs.20 lacs as compensation for mental agony, pain suffered and loss due to restrictive unfair and illegal actions of the defendant.

 

2. The short question which arises is as to whether complainants are consumer. Section 2(i)(d) consumer protection as amended provides that commercial transactions are out of the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The counsel for complainant cited decision in case Cheema Engineering Services Vs. Rajan Singh (1997) 1 SCC 131. That was a case of purchase of machinery and the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the same could be used exclusively for self employment.  The same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

 

3. Moreover, the cost of the shop is Rs.78,84,584/- ( as per copy of application for booking at page-18 of the complaint file),  it is such a huge amount that household wife investing about 80 lacs for shop cannot be expected to invest much more than that in the stock in trade and then start a business. Obviously, the shop was meant for earning a profit by selling the same after appreciation of price.

 

4. The complainants are living in Jungpura, New Delhi. They cannot be believed to have planned opening of shop at distant place at Gurgaon, Sector-84. The nature of business to be started by complainant-1 has not been disclosed.  It is not mentioned that complainant had any experience of the proposed business.

 

5. As per clause 4.2 of the agreement at page-46, the OP was to give possession of the shop within 36 months from the date of execution of agreement. The agreement bears date 01.08.2014 and time for possession would come on 01.08.2017. The complaint filed on 21.04.2016 is premature. The complainant cannot exit from allotment and seek refund without any breach on the part of OP. The complaint is dismissed in limini.

 

6. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

7. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         ​