Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President: The complaint has booked a shop premises at Poonam Plaza situated at Western Express Highway. It is at block no. 203, second floor, admeasuring 1025 sq.ft. approximately saleable area. It was agreed to be purchased for an amount of Rs.35,89,250/-. The complainant has also paid an amount of Rs.37,87,911/-. The entire amount of consideration has been paid by the complainant however; possession has not been given to him. Therefore, he filed consumer complaint seeking possession and damages etc. Complainant is a businessman and he resides at New Delhi. He is carrying on chemical business in the name and style as Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and the various payments receipts which are on record do show that the amounts were advanced by the Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd and the receipts thereof are issued in favour of Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- is in respect of cheque dated 23/02/2004 in the favour of Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The receipt dated 12/04/2004 for Rs.1,50,000/- is also in favour of Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. There are two receipts of 18/12/2004. They are in favour of Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. respectively for an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs and Rs.4,37,911/-. The receipt dated 02/03/2005 is for an amount of Rs.8 Lakhs in favour of Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. There are only two receipts produced on record viz. dated 09/03/2004 and 22/03/2004 which are issued in favour of complainant in his personal name, namely, in name of Shri Rahul Parikh respectively for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-. We asked Ld.Counsel for the complainant that how and why Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. have made payments. It is disclosed to us that Mr.Rahul Parikh/complainant is one of the directors of the said Private Limited Company and the said company is carrying on business of chemicals. It is equally disclosed to us that the office premises which are being purchased in the name of complainant are to be used for the business purpose i.e. commercial purpose and it is run in the name of Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the property is purchased by the complainant with the contribution of the private limited company and therefore, in law the real owners of the said shop is Shri Rupal Parikh and Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd., since both of them contributed to the consideration paid. Since, it is a private limited company, how many directors are there is not disclosed but one thing follows that there should be minimum two directors as per the Company Act. and since it is a company, it is a separate entity, a legal person. All these facts lead to an analysis that shop in question is being used for a commercial purposes or business purposes. This case cannot be fall within the explanation to definition of a “Consumer” as stated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this purchase of shop cannot be said for the purpose of self employment of the complainant. The business which is being run at Delhi by the complainant is being extended at Mumbai by taking this office premises. Therefore, it is a service which is availed for a commercial purpose and since it is a service availed for the commercial purpose; the relationship between the complainant and the opponent is not of Consumer and Service Provider as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the result, the consumer complaint is not maintainable; therefore, we are refrained to entertain said complaint. The complaint is hereby rejected. Hence, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Complaint is rejected. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Dictated on dais. 4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. |
