CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.347/2014

SHRI P.K. ISRANI

S/O LATE SH. K.A. ISRANI

R/O HOUSE NO.A-66/2 DDA,

SFS FLATS, SAKET,

NEW DELHI-110017

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

1. M/S SUPERTECH LIMITED

1114 HEMKUNT CHAMBER-89,

NEHRU PALCE, NEW DELHI-110019

THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

2. SH. ARVIND SINGH, PROPRIETOR

M/S I.Q. SETTRS

B-36, SECTOR-2, NOIDA

                                                …………..RESPONDENTS

                                                                                    Date of Order: 08.03.2016

O R D E R

The only point for consideration is whether complainant is a ‘consumer’.  It is an admitted fact that complainant has booked two studio apartments i.e. No.1401 and 1402 in Ecoloft of Eco Village III, on 14^th floor at Noida extension being developed by OP-1 through its broker Mr. Arvind Singh, OP-2. 

OP moved an application stating that complainant is not a consumer. The application is replied by complainant wherein it is stated that studio apartments are smaller one consisting of one hall plus one kitchen and one toilet and taking into consideration his family consisting of self, wife and one son, he has booked two studio apartments for residential purpose.  The fact remains that complainant has booked two residential flats.  It is settled law that if a person books more than one flat then he is not a ‘consumer’.

Reference is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission dated 04.9.2014 in case of Smt. Kusum Tyagi Vs M/s M. Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Complaint No.244/2014).  In that case complainant ha booked two flats and it was held in para 7 as under:-

“We have perused the complaint carefully.  The complainant had booked a number of plots.  She is not a ‘consumer’ in terms of the definition of ‘consumer’ as given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Law has been laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in a catena of judgments as well.  We are, therefore, of the considered view that the complaint is not maintainable.  The same is hence dismissed.”

In view of the law discussed above, complainant is not a consumer.  Accordingly, complaint stands dismissed.

The copy of order be sent to complainants and OP by post.  File be consigned to Record Room.

         (D.R. TAMTA)                                                                     (A.S. YADAV)

            MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT