Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1330/2016

M/S RODEO LEATHERS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.M BAGAI

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                              Date of Arguments:10.01.17

     Date of Decision:16.01.17

 

Complaint No. 1330/2016

 

In the matter of:

 M/s Rodeo Leathers Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director Rajan Chopra

10, Sultanpur Estate

Mandi Road, Mehrauli

New Delhi-110030.                                                                         …….Complainant

                                                            Versus

 

 

Unitech Limited

Registered Office

6, Community Centre

Saket, New Delhi-110017.                                           …….Opposite party

 

 

 

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 present appeal is based on the allegation that complainant is a private limited company incorporated under company’s Act.  Vide agreement dated 21.11.11 OP agreed to deliver fully equipped 2 BHK flat measuring 1254 sq. ft. on 4^th floor of residential complex “Crestview Apartments Wildflower Country, Gurgaon”  for Rs. 71,74,428/-.  Complainant was allotted unit no. 0403, Block A-4.  It deposited Rs. 7,00,000/- for booking.  It further paid Rs. 8,16,405/- on 21.11.11, Rs. 8,48,177/- on 09.01.12.  It agreed to purchase the said flat for bonafide residential requirement of its directors.  The possession of the flat had to be delivered by 21.02.15.  Despite expiry of stipulated date, it has not received any notice of possession from the OP. On 24.10.16 one of the director of the complainant went to site to see the stage of construction and was shocked to see that entire plot on which construction was supposed to commence in 2011 was lying barren and nothing has been done so far. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 23,64,582/-, interest @ 18% per annum, Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental pain and agony and Rs. 1,65,000/- for litigation expenses.

2.     The basic question which arises in this case is whether a company booking residential flat can come under consumer protection Act.  Obviously company is not a natural person.  It cannot reside in the booked flat.  Booking for residence of directors is not the main aim of the complainant’s company.  The complainant must seek its remedy in civil law.

3.     Counsel for the complainant relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and Another vs. Ashok Iron Woks Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 SCC 240.  What was held in the said case is that company is a person within the meaning of section 3(42) General Clauses Act.  It can file a complaint but whether the company booking a flat for residence of its director can file complaint under consumer protection Act was not the issue in the said case.

4.     Counsel for the complainant also relied upon decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1818 of 2009 titled as ESS PEE Automotives Ltd. Vs. SPN Singh decided on 12.12.14.  In that case Ashok Chitra (P) Ltd. and SPN Singh booked a car.  The sale certificate revealed that car was sold to SPN Singh. National Commission overruled the objection of OP that car purchased by a company was not covered under consumer protection Act.  In para 11 it was held that cause of action arose prior to amendment of Consumer Protection Act in the year 2003.  That is not applicable to the case in hand.

Complaint is dismissed in limini.

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

 

 

(O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)