State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Leelavati vs M/S Vsr Infra. Ltd. on 23 March, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION (Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Argument: 23.03.2016 Date of Decision: 01.04.2016 Complaint Case No. 128/2016 In the Matter of: Smt. Leelavati, W/o Sh. Dharamvir Gaur, R/o 520, Sector 5, Gurgaon, Haryana ......Complainant Versus M/s VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd. A-22, Hilliview Apartment, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Also At: Plot No. 44, Ground Floor, Sector 44, Institutional Area, Gurgaon 122003, Haryana Through Its Managing Director/ Principal Officer .......Opposite Party 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 case is taken up at the stage of admission. The complainant has alleged that she entered into an agreement with OP in January 2012 and paid Rs. 4,08,160/- as initial payment, the final payment done in totality Rs. 41,00,000/- for total land cost worth Rs. 55,00,000/-. The agreement suggested that physical possession of commercial unit No. 4A4-27 in "68Avenue", Sector 68, Gurgaon, Haryana will be given three years. In Para 7(a) it is mentioned that the subject matter was a way of the complainant towards earning her livelihood through this land and its investment. Legal notice dated 23.06.2015 was sent, a reminder was sent but no reply has been received. Hence, this complaint for directing the OP to hand over physical possession, refund Rs. 41,00,000/- along with interest @ 24%, pay compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- for delaying and causing mental agony, direct OP to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- for litigation charges.
2. The allotment letter copy of which is at page 18 shows that the super built up area is 587.280 sq. ft.
3. We put it to the counsel for the complainant that apparently the unit was commercial as is mentioned in Para 4 of the complaint. So, the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer under section 2(1)(d) Consumer Protection Act. The counsel for the complainant submitted that Para (a) at the top of page 5 of the complaint shows the complainant booked the same for earning her livelihood through this land and its investment.
4. The complaint does not show as to what is the qualification of complainant and what livelihood she was to adopt. It is not the case of the complainant that she is a qualified professional.
5. Moreover, in order to come within the exception of clause 2(1)(d) the livelihood should be by means of self employment. To find whether a man can earn livelihood by self employment, the relevant considerations are what was the amount invested, what is the area of unit, what was the nature of business likely to be commenced, number of persons likely to be employed.
6. A person purchasing unit for Rs. 55,00,000/- cannot be said to be a bonafide user for self employment. The things could have been understood, had the investment been reasonable say Rs. 5,00,000/- to 7,00,000/-.
7. The premises booked for ATM cannot be said to be source of livelihood by self employment. A unit booked for BPO cannot be said to be booked for earning livelihood by self employment as number of employees are likely to be deployed. Area of about 100 sq. ft. can be said to be of personal office but not office with the area of 567 sq. ft.
8. In Jagmohan Chhabra Vs. DLF Ltd. IV (2007) CPJ 199 it was held by National Commission that space purchased by complainants was earning profit and was relatable to commercial purpose. The complaint was found to be not maintainable and was dismissed at the stage of admission.
9. In Travel India Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HUDA II (2008) CPJ 329 it was held that purchase of unit not for earning livelihood by means of self employment relates to commercial purpose which was excluded from the definition of Consumer and the complaint was dismissed at the stage of admission.
10. Similar view was taken by National Commission in complaint case No. 183/12 titled as Shikha Birla Vs. DLF Relaxable Developers Ltd. decided on 01.02.2013 in complaint case No. 236/12 titled as Richa & Company Vs. DLF Universal Ltd decided on 01.01.2012.
11. The pronouncement by National Commission in Monstera State Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ARDEE Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. IV (2010) CPJ 299 SKG Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. III (2010) CPJ 260 and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dikha Enterprises III (2010) CPJ 333 are also for the same preposition.
12. In Pradeep Singh Pehel Vs. TDI Pvt. Ltd. decided on 21.09.2015 National Commission did not find area of 800 sq. ft. as one for self employment.
13. The counsel for the complainant has relied upon decision of National Commission in complaint case against M/s DLF Universal Ltd. decided on 15.12.2014. In Para 7 it has been held that complainants were trying to seek shelter of bald plea in the complaint that they had booked commercial spaces in the tower for earning their livelihood by means of self employment. Merely, taking of plea will not entitle the complainants to get the benefit of explanation which carves out exception for the person who has hired the services exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. This judgment in a way goes against the complainant instead of helping her.
14. As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed in Limini.
A copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs as per rules.
File be consigned to record room.
(O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial) (S.C. Jain) Member