National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shri Harnam Singh vs (1) Shalimar Estate Pvt. Ltd. on 29 May, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1129 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 16-01-2012 in Appeal No. 6/2012 of the State Commission, Haryana) Shri Harnam Singh S/o Santokh Singh R/o H. NO. 784, Sector-12 Panchkula ........ Petitioner (s) Vs. (1) Shalimar Estate Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office,SCO 110-111, Sector 8-C Chandigarh Through Manager (2) Mr. R.K. Aggarwal Shalimar Estate Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office at SCO 110-111, Sector 8-C Chandigarh (3) The Manager Shalimar Mall Sector 5 Panchkula .Respondent (s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Sangwan, Advocate Dated : 29 May, 2012 ORDER
PER JUSTICE MR. J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER The main facts emanating from the record are these. This Commission is faced with the controversy whether the complainant/petitioner is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Shri Harnam Singh, petitioner alleged that the respondents named above have failed to deliver the physical possession of the showroom. It is explained that the petitioner had applied for a showroom and had deposited the entire amount. The residue amount was paid at the time of possession of the showroom. The respondent had assured the petitioner that possession of the showroom will be delivered within two years from the date of issuance of Acceptance-cum-Demand letter subject to payment of scheduled amount.
3. Both the Fora below have dismissed the claim made by the petitioner on the ground that he was not a consumer. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards few authorities by the State Commission in order to buttress his case.
All these cases were decided by the same Judge. In case reference Dinesh Midha Vs. Shalimar Estates dated 02-09-2011, in Complaint Case No. 09/2011 pertaining to the Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sandeep Gulati Vs. Shalimar Estates Complaint Case No. 10/2011 decided on 02-11-2011 and R.K. Bagga Vs. Shalimar Estates complaint case no. 08/2011 decided on 02-09-2011, held that in such like cases the complainant was a consumer.
5. However, we are unable to find force in this argument because the National Commission has in two cases taken a contrary view. These authorities are reported in Monstera Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ardes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported in IV (2010) CPJ 299 (NC) and in case titled Rajastahn State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Vs. Diksha Enterprises III (2010 CPJ 333 (NC).
These authorities were mentioned by both the Fora below.
6. Counsel for the petitioner explained that the said showroom was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 80 lakhs. He would not show to this Commission that showroom is for some charitable purpose or for some self-employment of the petitioner. Nothing was produced on record to show what is the occupation of the petitioner. This was not brought to light from where this much huge amount has come into the hands of the petitioner. The petition is without merit and hence dismissed in limine.
.....J (J.M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER aj/