Haryana

StateCommission

A/1005/2015

MAYANK JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

07 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.1005 of 2015

Date of the Institution:16.11.2015

Date of Decision:07.07.2017

 

 

1.      Mayank Jain S/o Rakesh Jain,

2.      Sarita Jain W/o Sh. Vivek Jain.

Both R/o H.No.513, Sector-15, Part-1, Gurgaon, Tehsil &  District Gurgaon.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Raheja Developers Ltd., Regd. & Head Office 215-216, Rectangle One, D-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.      M/s Raheja Atlantis, Sector 31-32A, Jharsa Road, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

3.      M/s Raheja Square, Maintenance Office, Plot-A, Sector-2, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                   .….Respondents

Present:-    Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Suvir Kumar,  Advocate for respondents.

 

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1.      Mayank Jain and Anr. are in appeal against the Order dated 30.09.2015, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby their Complaint has been dismissed being not maintainable as they were not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.

2.      In brief, according to the Complainants, in the month of January, 2007, the complainants have purchased office space measuring 40.82 sq.ft. situated in Commercial Complex, Raheja Square, IMT, Manesar, District Gurgaon @Rs.2250/- per sq.ft by depositing Rs.15 Lakhs. The OPs offered office space measuring 501.04 sq.ft @Rs.2250/- per sq. ft. to the complainants and asked them to deposit a sum of Rs.16 lakhs to get the agreement to sell executed. The complainants paid Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.16 lakhs for the purchase of office area measuring 740.82b sq ft. and 501.04 sq ft. respectively. However, lateron OPs disclosed that the office space measuring 740.82 sq. ft was not available and only the office space measuring 501.04 sq.mt. on the first  floor was available  and promised to refund the balance amount with interest @24% p.a. but the said amount has not been refunded till date. The complainants have paid a total sum of Rs.32,81,081/- as against the sale consideration of Rs.11,27,340/-. The OPs have executed sale deed dated 29.02.2009 qua the office space measuring 501.04 sq.ft for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,27,340/- and the possession of the same was offered vide letter  dated 19.09.2007. The complainants sent legal notice requesting the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.16,43,226/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. and the said legal notice was replied by the OPs in which it has been mentioned that a sum of Rs.5,10,505/- was  liable  to be refunded.  Aggrieved against this, the Complainants approached the District Forum claiming Rs.16,43,236/- alongwith interest besides mental harassment and litigation expenses.

3.      OP in its written statement pleaded that the complainants had applied for booking of shop on 08.01.2004 with the OP bearing No.F-10 measuring 740.82 sq. ft.  situated in Commercial Complex namely “Raheja Square” at IMT Manesar, Gurgaon and the said complex was ready for use and  occupation in the month of July, 2005. The complainants agreed to make any payment as promised and consequently, the OP rejected the booking. In the month of January, 2007 the complainant again came to the OP and requested them to regularize their booking. After due negotiations it was agreed between the parties that the complainants would pay the due amount alongwith interest @24% p.a., which also included interest on maintenance, security and maintenance charges. As the complainants paid the said due amount alongwith interest, hence their booking was confirmed. The OP agreed to sell only one office area measuring 704.82 sq. ft. vide booking dated 08.01.2004. Both the cheques amounting to Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.16 lakhs were towards the due payment of said booking dated 08.01.2004.  After final audit revised area of the allotee shop came to be 501.04 sq ft. and the same was offered to the complainants. They duly accepted the same and also duly signed an agreement dated 14.10.2007 which was regarding the office space bearing No.F-10 measuring 501.04 sq ft.  super area on the first floor amounting to Rs.11,29,340/- alongwith interest on the amount of sale from 08.01.2004 to actual payment and the payment of other charges including maintenance security and maintenance charges with interest @24% p.a. OP-1 further received an amount of Rs.1,01,390/- towards the balance payment as the original booking was for 704.82 sq.ft and as per the original booking the complainants were liable to pay the said amount. OP further demanded Rs.79,691/- from the complainants. The amount in question was towards the payment of outstanding maintenance charges due from July, 2008 to December, 2009 which were being belatedly paid by the complainants in the month of August, 2009. The said charges had to be borne by the complainants for the maintenance of said complex. It is denied that OP received a total sum of Rs.32,81,081/-. The total sale consideration to be paid for the alleged office space was Rs.11,27,340/-. Infact, an amount of Rs.5,10,505/- has already been paid to the complainants, which were duly received by them without any protest. The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 30.09.2015 being not maintainable as they were not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. 

4.      Against the impugned order, the complainants have filed the present appeal before us reiterating the same submissions, as raised by them before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record, after a perusal whereof we are fully satisfied that the appellants are certainly not covered within the definition of Consumer. In fact, the complainants are running wholly commercial transactions and their disputes with the OPs cannot be said as grievances of a Consumer within the scope and meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The mere fact that sale of two units was agreed to between the parties clearly shows that the business was not for livelihood or self employment of the appellant, but was obviously for commercial purpose. In this regard we have the advantage of a binding precedents by Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Travel India Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs Senior Town Planner HUDA, reported as 2008 (2)C.P.J. 329: 2008 (4) in which it has been held as under:-

“4. Words occurring towards the end in above sub-clause (ii)- ‘but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose’ were added and the explanation substituted by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 w.e.f. 15.03.203. Bare reading of the Explanation would show that services which are availed of for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment only  are not to be treated for commercial purpose. Alleged service for providing two dwelling units at a cost of Rs.46,65,000/- by OP No.6, obviously, is not for earning livelihood by means of self employment by the complainant – company and the transaction is relatable to service for commercial purpose which has been excluded from the purview of the definition as given in Section 2(I)(d)(ii) w.e.f. 15.03.2003. Thus, complainant not being a consumer the complaint itself is not maintainable under the Act. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed as such”.

5.      Consequently, we fully agree with the detailed and well reasoned Order of the learned District Forum and dismiss the appeal as well as the Complaint with no order as to costs. 

July 07th,  2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

R.K.