Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 5]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Rakesh Kumar vs Parsavnath Developers Ltd on 18 May, 2010

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
  
 
 
 
 
 







 



 

  

 

IN
THE STATE COMMISSION :   DELHI 

   

 Date
of Decision : 18.05.2010 

   

 Complaint
No. C-10/54 

 

  

 

1. Rakesh Kumar  

 

s/o Shri
Shanker Singh, 

 

2. Smt. Kiran
Singh  

 

s/o Shri
Rakesh Kumar 

 

  

 

both r/o D-257, second floor,
 

 

Anand Vihar,   Delhi. 

 

  

 

Old address
: 

 

146, Jagriti
Enclave, 

 

Anand Vihar,
Delhi-92 

 

  

 

     .. Complainants.  

 

  

 VS 

 

Parsavnath Developers Ltd., 

 

Through its Managing
Director 

 

Shri Sanjiv
Jain 

 

Parsvnath Metro Mall, 

 

Shahdara Metro Railway Station, 

 

Shahdara,
Delhi-32. 

 

  

 

Corporate office address :- 

 

Parsvnath Developers Ltd, 

 

Registered office at  

 

6th floor,   Arunachal  Building, 

 

  19-Barakhamba Road, 

 

New Delhi-110001. 

 

  

 

  

 

  ...Opposite Parties 

 

   

 

CORAM 

 


M.L. Sahni, Presiding
Member. 

Mrs. Salma Noor, Member

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

M.L. SAHNI, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. Complainant No. 1 is a practicing Advocate and complainant no. 2 , is his wife. They booked two shops with the OP in Parshavnath Kaushambhi Mall in Ghaziabad (UP) at a total cost of Rs. 15,03,500/- for shop no. FA-7 and Rs. 15,09,514/- for shop no. 46 F-8 and paid a total consideration of Rs. 28,62,363/- for both the shops, after raising loan from ICICI Bank Ltd.,

2. On receiving communication dated 8.7.2009 from the OP that the shops were ready for possession, it was revealed that the construction was not on time, as per the agreement, for which the OP were liable to pay a compensation @ 10/- per sq. ft. every month to the complainants.

3. The complainants have also alleged that the OP are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for number of reasons detailed in the complaint.

4. We have heard the complainant No.-1 in person at the admission stage for himself and on behalf of his wife the complainant No. 2. When asked to satisfy us as to how their complaint is a consumer complaint, he could simply state that he and his wife have purchased the shops by paying the consideration to the OP, therefore, they are the consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

5. We have, therefore, perused the definition of the Consumer as provided by clause

(d)(i) & (ii) of sub-section (1) section 2 of the Act, and pointed out to the complainant that term, consumer does not include a person who buys goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ; or who avails services of any description for any commercial purpose but no satisfactory explanation was offered . However, the order on admission was reserved to examine the complaint thoroughly, so as to find, if the case of the complainants is covered by the Explanation to clause (d) of the Act, which reads as follows :-

Explanation For the purpose of this clause, commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

6. Later, the complainants filed an application stating that they had booked two shops /office space for his (not their) own livelihood. This plea has been taken as an after-thought, because, there is not even a whisper in the entire complaint that the shops in question were booked for earning their livelihood. This plea now after the order on admission was reserved is taken just to bring complaint within the ambit of explanation to clause (d) of section 2(1) of the Act, which requires that goods obtained or services availed for commercial purposes are for earning of complainants livelihood by means of self-employment.

7. Complainant No. 1 is practicing advocate and complainant No. 2 is a house wife, therefore, booking of shops/commercial space in the Mall in Ghaziabad by no stretch of imagination can be believed to be for purpose of earning their own livelihood by self-employment.

8. We, therefore, find that complainants are not the consumers to maintain the present complaint . Hence, it is rejected u/s 12(3) of the Act at the admission stage itself.

 

(M.L. Sahni) Presiding Member       (Mrs. Salma Noor) Member   sk