State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punit Kumar Sharma & Anr. vs M/S Earth Infrastructures Ltd. & Anr. on 26 February, 2018
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Dates of Arguments: 26.02.18 Date of Decision: 07.03.18 Complaint No.89/2018 In the matter of: Punit Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Shiv Ram Sharma Dewaansh Sharma S/o Shri Punit Kumar Sharma Ms. Sonali Sharma D/o Shri Punit Kumar Sharma All residents of: 29D/3, Flat No. 2,3rd Floor Deepak Apartments, Ward No. 1 DESU Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi. .....Complainants Versus M/s Earth Infrastructure Ltd., Regd. Office: B-100, 2nd Floor, Naraina Indl. Area, New Delhi-110028. Corporate Office: A-1, C&D, Sector-16, Near Metro Station Noida, UP. Shri Vikas Gupta Mg. Director- M/s Earth Infrastructure Ltd., 26, Ist Floor, Pusa Road New Delhi-110005. Shri Nandan Singh R/o 317-A, Shaktikhand-1, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, UP. ......Respondents Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member 1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL) JUDGEMENT
The case presented by the complainant is that Smt. Neelam Sharma booked office space in her life time with the OP. Complainant No. 1 is husband of said Neelam Sharma and complainant No. 2 and 3 are son & daughter of Neelam Sharma. In the beginning of 2011 OP No. 3 informed complainant No. 1 that it was in the process of developing and constructing project IT/ITES office space/shops of various dimensions in complex "Sapphire Court" on plot No. 48, Knowledge Park, Greater Noida, UP. It was assured that complainant would get assured return of 12% on the investment and investment would be doubled in a short span. Complainant No. 1 being allured by OP 3 and believing his words informed his wife who showed interest in investing in the project of OP 1. She made initial payment in cash, (Rs. 2,35,000/- on 10.2.11 and Rs. 4,00,000/- on 10.03.11) for which OP 1 issued credit notes. He paid Rs. 16,01,680/- vide two cheques dated 25.02.11 and 09.03.11. On 21.03.11 MOU was executed for Rs. 19,69,400/-.OP 1 was quite regular in paying the assured return every month by issuing cheques. Since Oct., 2015 OP abruptly stopped making payment. In October 2015 Smt. Neelam Sharma expired . In 3rd week of March 2017 complainants received letter dated 10.03.17 illegally demanding some more payment. Hence this complaint for directions to OP to refund Rs. 22,36,680/- received by OP for allotmentof office space, to pay assured amount of Rs. 5,78,474/- with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.
2. The case is still at the stage of admission. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. Unmistakably the booking was for office space which is not covered in the definition of consumer. Unfortunately the complaint lacks pleadings that booking was for earning livelihood by means of self employment.
3. Not only this the promise of the assured return gives a colour of commercial transaction. This is so as per decision of National Commission in CC No. 246/13 titled as Preeti Arora vs. ARN Infrastructure decided on 06.04.17.
4. The complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed in limini.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)