Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1175/2016

M/S TEL EXCEL INFORMATION SYSTEM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERTECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                                         

                                                         Date of Arguments: 29.11.16 

                                                         Date of Decision:    02.12.16 

 

Complaint No. 1175/2016

In the matter of:

           

M/s Tel Excell Information System Ltd.

            33, Yusuf Sarai, Green Park Extn.,

New Delhi.                                                                            …..Complainant

 

                                                            Vs.

Supertech Limited

1114, 11^th Floor,

Hemkunt Chamber

89, Nehru Place

New Delhi-110019                                                                          …Respondent

 

Through its Managing Director

 

CORAM

                                                                           

^{O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)}

 

^{1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes}

 

2.  ^{To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes}

                                                                                     

                                                         Judgement

            The complainant booked a flat No.3909 in North Eye Tower, situated at  Capetown, GH-01/A, Sector 74, NOIDA, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, UP for Rs. 1,32,30,243/- as per allotment letter dated 12.07.11.  He paid Rs. 66,07,892/-. OP promised completion and possession of the flat by December 2014 with a grace period of six months.  It could not hand over the flat and is not in a position to hand over flat in next two years.  Hence this complaint for refund of the amount with interest @ 24% per annum, damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental tension, agony unnecessary harassment, Rs. 33,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.         I have heard the counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission.  The complainant is apparently an artificial jurisdictional person and not a natural person.  It cannot reside as such. Thus booking by it cannot  be for residential purpose.

4.         Counsel for the complainant relied upon decision in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. III (2009) CPJ 5 (SC) to make out that definition of consumer u/s 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act means any person who buys any goods…………’Person’ u/s 2(1) (m) of the Act includes every other association of persons whether registered under Societies Registration Act or not the definition of person u/s 2(1) (m) is inclusive and not exhaustive.  Hence company is a person within the meaning section 2(1) (d).

5.         That judgement is under different context.  There the question was not whether company can book premises for residential purpose.  The question was whether company can file a complaint in respect of electric supply connection which has been taken in the name of company.

6.         It is settled law that a decision is precedent for what it decides and not what follows from it.

7.         The counsel for the complainant also submitted that the complainant  booked flat for the purpose of residence of its employee.  Firstly it is not so mentioned in the complaint.  Secondly it is not business a complainant can acquire and allot premises to its officers for their residence.  The company is engaged for IT business as is mentioned in para 2 of the complaint.

8.         Thus what can be inferred is that complainant booked a flat for purpose of earning profit by selling it at a time when the prices increases. That would be purely commercial and outside the scope of consumer protection act. In this regard reliance can be placed on decision of National Commission in Shailaja Finance Ltd. Vs. GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 724.

The complaint is dismissed in limini.

 

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

                                                                                                                           

 

 

 

(O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)