Haryana

StateCommission

CC/101/2014

Ajay Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unicity Projects - Opp.Party(s)

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

                                                Complaint No.101 of 2014

                                                       Date of Institution: 24.09.2014         Date of Decision: 06.02.2017

Ajay Ahuja S/o B.D.Ahuja R/o H.NO.1684, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana.

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Unicity Projects SCO-409 Sector 20, Panchkula, through its authorized signatory.

2.      ICICI Bank Limited SCO 129-130, Sector 9 C, Chandigarh-160017 through its Manager.

          …..Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Mr.Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate counsel for opposite party No.1.

                             Mr. D.K.Singhal, Advocate counsel for O.P.No.2.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the complainant that he is running a proprietor concern known as M/s Aeon Systems dealing in Air Conditioning equipments for earning livelihood. He had taken premises on monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-  for this purpose. To run business from his own premises for livelihood he booked office space No.304 measuring 1240 sq. feet valuing
Rs.49/- lacs with the opposite parties (O.Ps.) and agreement was executed to this effect on 14.06.2010 at Panchkula.  It was agreed to deliver possession by 30^th of December 2010 otherwise OP No.1 was to pay compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. feet per month, but, possession was never offered till filing of complaint despite deposit of Rs.38/- lacs. So Op No.1 be directed to refund that amount alongwith interest and other compensation as asked for in the complaint. The O.Ps. are working for profit and gain under the territorial jurisdiction of this commission.

2.      O.P.No.1 filed reply conroverting his averments and alleged that complainant is not covered by the definition of consumer because he is already running business and booked office in the commercial unit.  This commission is not having territorial jurisdiction as provided  under section 17 1 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”). There was no fault on it’s part as alleged by complainant.  He approached it to give contract of installing air condition system in this project worth Rs.70/- lacs and Rs.57,51,810/- for  FRP cooling tower as mentioned in para No.3 of the reply.  Sufficient amount was paid to him, but, even then he did not complete work and that is why matter was reported to police.  By that time he executed work worth Rs.15/- lacs only.  It suffered loss worth crores of rupees due to fault on his part because project could not be completed and offered for possession.  To escape from his liability qua that work he has filed this complaint. When he has not made complete payment he is not entitled for the refund  of the amount and complaint be dismissed.

3.      Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that he is covered by definition of consumer because this space was booked in a commercial building for earning livelihood from his own space, because, he was running business from rented premises.  So this commission is having jurisdiction to try this complaint.

5.      This argument is devoid of any force. If we go through the evidence and pleadings available on the file then it will be clear that complainant has not booked this flat for earning livelihood.  He is already running his business  may be from other space worth lacs of rupees.  Complainant is running a firm known as M/s Aeon systems dealing in air conditioning equipments. He is not only having contract with Blue Star company, but, is also doing other work. From the perusal of statement of account Ex.C-3  and Ex.C-4 it is clear that his turnover is running in lacs of rupees. Ex.R16 to Ex.R18 are also showing that Aeon system is running a huge business. The complainant is not to run business from this space for earning livelihood only. This suit has been booked for commercial purpose to enhance income and not earning livelihood, so he cannot be  considered as consumer as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Manu Talwar & Ors. Vs. BPTP Ltd. IV (2015) CPJ 396 (NC). It is opined therein that extension of business activities, which is already in existence, cannot be covered by the term self-employment and earning livelihood. In the present case the complainant purchased this space for enhancement of income.  It was only purchased for commercial purpose. All these facts clearly shows that the commercial space in question was commercial in nature and the complainant did not purchase it for earning livelihood.  He cannot be considered as consumers as provided under section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”).  These views are fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Pradeep Singh Pahal Vs. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CPJ 1 (2016) 219. When he is not covered by definition of consumer, complaint is not maintainable and this commission can’t adjudicate upon this dispute.

6.      When this commission is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter it is not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgement without jurisdiction amounts to nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.  Resultantly complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

February 06th, 2017

Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.