ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY OF THE COMPLAINT.
Complainant filed this Complaint against the OPs for deficiency in service. As per the Complaint, Complainant approached OP No.2 for the funds to construct an apartment and requested for a loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to build cellar, first floor, 2nd floor which was permitted by the competent authority and he elaborately said in his Complaint they are failed to do arrange the above said amount and prayed to order and direct the OP No.1 & 2 to issue provisional NOC to Complainant to enhance the credit limit and also to extend the term of loan and prayed to award Rs.18,00,000/-towards deficiency in service and Rs.15,00,000/-towards the damages.
2. Heard the arguments from the Complainant side.
3. In the first page of the Complaint, Complainant said that he need the fund for construction of apartment, since it is clear that the Complainant need the funds for his business i.e., commercial purpose. It is very much clear that the commercial users are not come under this purview. As per the Sec. 2 (d) (1)(ii) of the C.P. Act says as follows:
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or
(ii) “(hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, which such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose):.
It is reported in 2019 (2) CPR 520 (NC) in case of Prerna Malhotra and Anr. Vs. M/s. Pureath Infrastructure limited, wherein it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission that,
Consumer Protection Act 1986 –Section 21 (a)(i)-Section 2(1)(d) –Real Estate –Commercial unit-In spite of having paid 99% amount, possession not offered, hence sought refund. Refused. Hence, complaint. Defense of “commercial transaction” taken. The building was meant for flatted factories. The Complainants had taken the plea of “livelihood”. Though, it is alleged that the Complainant No.2 is running an extra-curriculum activity center for Kids from the property of her father-in-law, it is not claimed that she herself or even in association with her staff is taking care of the kids or imparting Extra-curriculum activity to them from the said property of her father-in-law. The Complainant No.2 works as Investment Banker. He is not trained Nursery Teacher. Hence he cannot claim that he would use that property for training of Kids. The Complainant No.1 helps her husband in his business. Complaint dismissed.
As per the Consumer Protection and the Citation cited supra it clears that the person, who is avail a service for commercial purpose is not come under the Consumer Protection Act and he cannot take shelter before the Forum. Hence Complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed as not maintainable.
