National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kusum Tyagi vs M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 17 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 04/09/2014 in Complaint No. 244/2014 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. KUSUM TYAGI W/O. SHRI VIKRAM SINGH TYAGI, R/O. B-1002, PALM SPINGS, GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTTOR-54, GURGAON-122001 HARYANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (UBSIDIARY OF ANS CONSTRUCTION LTD.) THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 144/2, MATHURA ROAD ASHRAM, NEW DELHI-110014 2. SH. SUSHEEL VATS, GM CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS, M-TECH DEVELOEPERS PVT. LTD., 144/2, MATHURA ROAD, ASHRAM, NEW DELHI-1100014 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : MR. S.K. PANDEY For the Respondent :
Dated : 17 Apr 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 4.9.2014 passed by the Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint No. 244/2014 - Kusum Tyagi Vs. M. Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. by which, complaint was dismissed at initial stage.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant booked two flats in M Tech Heights Bhiwadi on 23.10.2006 and paid initial booking amount of Rs.1,75,000/- for each flat. Her husband Vikram Singh Tyagi booked two plots with OP in project Camilla Valley and paid initial booking amount of Rs.1,75,000/- for each flat. Her son Vivek Tyagi booked two plots in OP's project Camilla Valley and paid initial booking amount of Rs.1,75,000/- on 21.11.2007. Her husband Vikram Singh Tyagi booked two flats in Camilla Garden-2, Bhiwadi and paid Rs.2,00,000/- at initial amount for each plot. Her husband Vikram Singh Tyagi booked two plots in Camellia Garden-1 Omega and paid Rs.1,20,000/- for each plot. It was further submitted that later on amount of aforesaid all bookings was transferred to two units allotted in ALFA-1 and agreements were executed. As there was no construction, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for refund of total amount of Rs.23,50,000/- with interest and prayed for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
3. Learned State Commission dismissed complaint as complainant had booked number of plots against which, this appeal has been filed.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant at admission stage and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that two plots were booked by complainant for herself and her son for their residence and complainant was consumer under the Consumer Protection Act; even then, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission.
6. Perusal of complaint reveals that number of flats and plots were booked by complainant, her husband and her son and later on booking amount of all the flats and plots was transferred to booking of two apartments. Nothing has been mentioned in the complaint that two apartments were booked for the complainant as well her son. In absence of any averment in the complaint regarding residence for her son also, it cannot be presumed that two apartments were booked for complainant as well her son. Perusal of complaint clearly reveals that number of plots and flats were booked by complainant and her family members; namely, husband and son and in such circumstances; complainant does not fall within purview of consumer.
7. Learned Counsel for appellant has drawn my attention to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 1995 SCC (3) 583 - Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute in which commercial purpose has been defined. Perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly reveals that where complainant and his family members have booked number of flats and plots complainant does not fall within purview of consumer and learned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint at initial stage.
8. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER