National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Indrajit Dutta vs Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 5 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1219 OF 2014 (From the order dated 16.10.2014 in CC No. CC/20/2012 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata) Indrajit Dutta s/o Makhan Lal Dutta, SW-4/18, Block BJ, Sector II, Salt Lake, P.S. Bidhannagar East, Kolkata 700 091. ... Appellant/Complainant Versus 1. Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Registered office at Ajad Hind Garh Salua More, Rajarhat Road, P.S. Airport, District North 24 Parganas Kolkata 700 136. 2. Smt. Swapna Rakshit w/o Haridas Rakshit, 48, H.B.G. Road, Anukul Bhawan, Joynagar 2nd Lane, P.O. Agartala, Tripura West, Tripura 3. Smt. Anuradha De w/o Haran Handra De, 48, H.B.G. Road, Anukul Bhawan, Joynagar 2nd Lane, P.O. Agartala, Tripura West, Tripura 4. Smt. Sutapa Miller w/o Brazil Miller, House No. 1237, Sector 49 B, Puspak Complex, Chandigarh 160 047. Respondents/Opposite Parties BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Srijan M. Advocate Mr. P. Singh, Advocate Mr. Amitava Poddar, Advocate Ms. Shweta, Advocate Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 5th FEBRUARY 2015 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 16.10.2014 passed by learned State Commission in complaint number 20/2012 Shri Indrajit Dutta versus Samridhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by which complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant appellant purchased two flats for his personal residence use from opposite party / respondents who were owners and developers for a sum of ₹30,25,000/-. Even after expiry of 7 years from receipt of sanctioned plan, finished work of flats has not been completed and possession has not been given which was to be given by 07.02.2010. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before the State Commission claiming huge compensation. Opposite party filed application and submitted that complaints were not maintainable as purchase of two flats by complainant amounts to commercial purpose and complainant does not fall within the purview of the consumer. Objection regard pecuniary jurisdiction was also raised and it was further submitted that sale is also under challenge before Civil Court and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint as not maintainable as complainant does not fall within the purview of the consumer, against which this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as both flats were purchased by complainant for his residence, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint on the ground that complainant does not fall within the purview of the consumer, hence appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to dispose complaint on merits. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law hence appeal be dismissed.
5. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased two flats from OP. In the complaint, it has been mentioned that flats were purchased for his personal residence but opposite party in the application submitted that flats were purchased for commercial purpose and complainant is not a consumer.
6. Learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in [III (2012) CPJ 315] Chilkuri Adarsh v. Ess Ess Vee Constructions in which it was held that when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounts to booking of such premises for commercial purposes. This Commission in [IV (2007) CPJ 199] Jagmohan Chabra and Anr. v. DLF Universal Ltd. also observed that when complainant has booked two flats on 2 floors he does not fall within the purview of the consumer. This Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 5 / 2014 and 6 / 2014, Sunil Gupta vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. observed that consumer cannot book two different villas. In the light of the aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that as complainant has purchased two flats, it cannot be said to be for his residential purpose but amounts to be investment for commercial purpose and complainant does not fall within purview of the consumer. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing application and dismissing complaint as not maintainable.
7. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER RS/