Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/719

VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIRINDER ARORA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

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

 

Date of Argument: 01.02.2016

Date of Decision: 03.02.2016

 

First Appeal-719/2011

(Arising out of the order dated 833/07 passed by the

District Forum, Qutub Institutional Area, X, New Delhi)

 

        In the Matter of:

               

                1. Vardhman Properties Ltd.

          Through Its Authorized Signatory,

          Sh. Ajit Singh, G-9, DDA Building,

          Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019

 

          2. Sh. Vinod Jain

          J-13, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-18

 

          3. Sh. N.K. Jain,

          J-13, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-18

 

 

……Appellants     Versus   1. Sh. Virinder Arora Son of Sh. M.L. Khandpul 19, Triveni Apartment S-3 Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-18   2. Mrs. Anila Arora Wife of Sh. Virinder Arora Son of Sh. M.L. Khandpul 19, Triveni Apartment S-3 Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-18                                                                               …….Respondents

CORAM

  O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

  (S.C. Jain, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.             The present appeal involves a short point as to whether allotment of space for commercial purpose can be litigated in Consumer Protection Act. The complainants/respondent booked Unit No. VMPG31 in Vardhman Market, Vikaspuri J-Block, New Delhi. The total price was Rs. 8,28,000/-. Respondents made initial payment of 10% on 26.02.2003 and another Rs. 2,50,000/- on 14.04.2003. Thereafter, the respondents did not respond to letters dated 23.04.2003, 22.05.2003, 23.06.2003, 25.07.2003 and 28.08.2003. Cancellation letter dated 01.06.2004 was served.

2.             The counsel for appellant has relied upon recent decision of National Commission in revision petition No. 3754/14 titled as M/s Vardhman Properties Ltd. Vs. Som Dutt Sharma decided on 09.12.214. In the said case it was held that section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act provided that a person who avails of such services for commercial purpose is not included. The explanation of said section provides that commercial purpose does not include a person of services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

3.             In the instant case the complaint does not contain even iota of the averment that the complainants booked the space for purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self employment. Thus, there is no option but to accept the appeal and dismiss the complaint.

4.             The respondents are given liberty to seek their remedy in civil court after excluding the time spent in present proceedings as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

5.             The appeal arise out of order dated 23.11.2011 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X in complaint case no. 833/07.

                One copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules. One copy be sent to District Forum for information.

                File be consigned to record room.

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S.C. Jain)

Member

Rakeeba