National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Balbir Singh Randhawa vs Dlf Universal Limited & Anr. on 18 March, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 402 OF 2016 1. BALBIR SINGH RANDHAWA H. NO. 1164, SECTOR-39, URBAN ESTATE,CHANDIGARH ROAD, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED & ANR. (THROUGH ITS MD/AR)
SHOPPING MALL, ARJUN MARG, PHASE-1, DLF CITY, GURGAON. 2. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED, (THROUGH ITS MD/AR)
SCO 190-191-192, SECTOR-8C, CHANDIGARH ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Sukaam Gupta, Advocate For the Opp.Party :
Dated : 18 Mar 2016 ORDER
1.Balbir Singh Randhawa has filed instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in respect of a commercial space booked by him in the developer project undertaken by the opposite party.
2. The term "Consumer" is defined under Section 1 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under: -
"(d) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.
Explanation.-- For the purposes 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 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment"
-3-3. Since undisputedly the complainant had booked a commercial premises it cannot be denied that even if the allegations in the complainant are taken as gospel truth the services of the opposite parties were availed by the complainant for commercial purpose. Therefore, in view of the exception carved out in Section 2 (1) (d) the services having been availed for commercial purpose the complainant does not fall within the definition of "Consumer".
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that case of the complainant is covered in the explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support of this contention he has drawn our attention to the averment in the complaint that the complainant booked the aforesaid premises with a view to earn livelihood by means of self-employment after retirement and shifting to India.
5. We do not find merit in the contention of the complainant. On reading of the explanation which gives restricted meaning to the term "Commercial Purpose" it is clear that the commercial purpose does not include the service availed by a person exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Admittedly, the complainant is presently based at Abu Dhabi. On our query, learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant is gainfully employed at Abu Dhabi. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of -4- booking commercial plot the complainant was gainfully employed. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant had booked commercial plot with a view to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment after retirement and shifting to India. No time frame has been given in the complaint. Therefore, the aforesaid vague averment in the complaint will not bring the case of the complainant within the ambit to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. In view of the discussion above, it is clear that the complainant has availed of services of the opposite party in relation to a commercial purpose. Therefore, he is not covered under the definition of "Consumer" and as such the complainant cannot maintain the consumer complaint. Complaint is accordingly rejected. The complainant, however, shall be at liberty to avail of his legal remedy by moving the appropriate Forum.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER