State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma & Anr. vs Amr Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. on 9 October, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 09.10.2017 Date of Decision: 16.10.2017 Complaint No.558/2014 In the matter of: Mr.Arun Kumar Sharma s/o Mr. Rameshwar Mr. Rameshwar Nath Sharma S/o Late Mr. D.C.Sharma Mrs. Pushpa Sharma W/o Mr. Rameshwar Nath Sharma All above three complainants are R/o: Block-F, 502, Sanmati Kunj Plot 19-A, Sect-6, Dwarka New Delhi-110075. ......Complainants Versus AMR Infrastructure Limited A company registered under companies act, 1956 Having it's registered office at: 2425/11, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005. Through it's Managing Director/Authorized Director/Authorized Officer Mr. Ram Chander Soni Authorized Director AMR Infrastructure Limited Having it's registered office at- 2425/11, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. ......Opposite parties CORAM Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member 1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) JUDGMENT
The case of the complainant is that OP committed to offer possession of Shop No. I-42 on ground floor of Kessel I Valley Mall, Greater Noida by end of March 2011 as stipulated in MOU dated 25.02.10. Complainant had a business plan which was entirely based on said shop. Now that plan has changed due to financial position of complainants. OP failed in abiding terms by way of irregularity in issuing assured return cheques and repeated dishonour of assured cheques for past approximate 18 months. Hence this complaint for directing OP to refund Rs. 34,00,000/- paid by the complainant so that the complainant may earn their livelihood and employ themselves, to direct OP to pay assured return of Rs. 33,190/- on 5th of every calendar month. OP was served for 13.07.15 and put in appearance. No WS was filed till 09.02.16. Right to file WS was closed.
2. OP moved an application for rejection of complaint on the ground that the project for which complainant applied was commercial shop measuring 445.95 sq. ft. The complainant has nowhere pleaded that said shop was booked exclusively for purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment.
3. The Complainant filed a reply to the application in which they did not respond to the specific objection taken by the OP.
4. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The complainant stressed that averments made in para 2 of the complaint that they had business plan which was entirely based on shop in question read with prayer clause 3 where the complainants have explained the purpose of refund, constitute the necessary ingredients for bringing commercial project within ambit of Consumer Protection Act.
5. We are unable to impress ourself with the argument.
6. In our view para 2 of the complaint demolishes the case of the complainant. If the financial position of the complainant has changed, OP cannot be blamed for it. So far as prayer clause is concerned it may be observed that earning livelihood and employing by complainant is the purpose for which refund has been sought. It is not the purpose of booking shop. Refund, the complainant can claim even without there being any purpose.
7. Clause of assured returns indicates the complainants never intended to use the shop for earning their livelihood by self employment. Rather it will be a case of leasing out the premises. This question recently came up before National Commission in CC No. 246/13 titled as Preeti Arora vs. ARN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 06.04.17 it was held that clear intention of complainant while booking space was not to use the same for earning her livelihood by way of self employment. Had that been the intention, the complainant would not have entered into lease clause with the OP. Thus it is clear that the case of the complainant does not fall within the explanation of section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The complainant has booked commercial space, she cannot be termed as consumer in view of exception carved out in the definition. The complaint was dismissed.
8. Applying the above law the application of the OP is allowed and complaint is dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)