CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 272/11
Girish Sharma
Director of M/s Origin Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
having its registered office cum residence
at: E-32/D, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027 ……Complainant
Versus
Sh. Sanjay Batra
Proprietor of
M/s Sanjay Electricals
Shop No.136/13, Begampur
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 08.08.2011 Date of Order : 28.4.2015
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
N.K. Goel, President
Who can file a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act)? Who is a Complainant as defined in the Act? Whether any person can file a complaint under the Act irrespective of the fact whether he/she buys any goods or avails of any services for any purpose including commercial purpose?
Our answers to all these questions are in negative. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act specifically debars a person from filing a complaint under the Act who has bought any goods for sale or for any commercial purpose or has availed of services for any commercial purposes. If a person has bought the goods or availed of the services for commercial purpose he is not a consumer. This is so clear from a bare perusal of the definition of the term ‘Consumer’ as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.
What can be a commercial purpose can be decided on the facts of a particular case.
In present case, the Complainant claiming himself to be a Director of M/s Origin Hospitality Pvt. Ltd has pleaded that he is engaged in the business of hospitality under the name of above stated Co. and that with an intend to set up a restaurant under the name and style of “Dillie Spicees” at Dwarka, New Delhi as detailed in Para-3 & 4 of the complaint, he wanted to make it modern restaurant and contacted the OP who is an interior decorator and undertakes jobs relating to interior decoration to do the interior decoration work as detailed in Para-8 of the complaint in or about March, 2011 for a total cost of Rs.4,50,000/- which he paid in installments as detailed in the complaint. The Complainant took the premises on rent for different rents by executing Lease Deed in favour of the landlords as detailed in the complaint but the OP did not complete the work due to which the Complainant had to vacate the premises. He served the OP with a legal notice dated 20.05.11 but in vain. Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to refund Rs.4,50,000/-, to make good the loss suffered by the Complainant by way of rents paid to the Landlords to the tune of Rs.1,86,000/- and Rs.2 lakh for compensation towards mental torture and physical harassment.
OP has been proceeded exparte. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. We have heard Counsel for Complainant and have also gone through the documents.
Legal notice dated 20.05.11 (Copy Ex.CW-1/C) was sent to the OP. OP sent a reply dated 10.06.11 (Copy Ex.CW-1/D) to the legal notice. The Complainant sent a reply to the reply dated 06.07.11 (Copy Ex.CW-1/E). In reply Ex. CW-1/D, the OP pleaded that the contract was for an amount of Rs.16 lakh out of which the Complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- while the total work of Rs.6,50,000/- had been carried out.
Certified copies of the Lease Deeds have been filed on the record. Lease Deeds had been executed between the Landlords and M/s Origin Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. through the Complainant. Therefore, Lease Deeds had also been executed between the Landlords and a Private Ltd. Co. As per the averments made in the complaint, the Complainant has been doing the business of hospitality under the name and style of M/s Origin Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant had intended to set up a restaurant in Dwarka for the purposes of expansion of his hospitality business and not for earning livelihood. Therefore, the contract in question was also meant for commercial purpose. Hence, the Complainant being not covered under the definition of “Consumer” as defined in the Act, the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 28.04.15.
