State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Inderjeet Singh vs M/S Vigneshwara Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 22 September, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 22.09.17 Date of Decision: 10.10.17 Complainat No. 1480/2017 In the matter of: Shri Inderjeet Singh S/o Late Surinder Singh Jaggi R/o C-1/208, Janakpuri New Delhi. .....Complainant Versus M/s Vigneshwara Developers Pvt. Ltd. Reg. Off. D-16, Bhagwani House Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Through its Managing Director ....Opposite Party C ORAM 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 as set up by the complainant is that he booked 500 sq. ft. Commercial Technology Space vide agreement dated 18.07.09 for Rs.27,50,000/- for self employment. He availed services for his personal necessity and for future employment purpose. OP promised to deliver possession within five years from date of execution of builder buyer agreement. He was allured with option of assured return and OP undertook to pay Rs. 55/- per sq. ft. per month of super area for period of 60 months. While sending allotment letter complainant did not realize that schedule for possession of the space was 5 years from the date of sanctioning of building plan or execution of floor buyer agreement whichever is later.
2. He would be entitled to tax rebate u/s 24(B)and 80(C) of Income Tax Act only after securing possession of flat and commencement of EMI. He gets no tax relief on pre-EMI commencement. The possession is not offered till date. Hence this complaint for direction to the OP for handing over possession, pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited, to pay Rs. 10/- per sq. ft p.m. on the built up area for first six months, Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. for next six months, Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. p.m. for any delay as per agreed terms and conditions. He had also sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment, discomfort and undue hardship. He has prayed for litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
3. We have gone through material on record and heard arguments at the stage of admission. Explanation of section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act saves booking of commercial purpose only when two ingredients are fulfilled. One is that booking must be for earning livelihood and the said is that it should be by self employment. In the instant case the complainant has no where alleged that he booked space for earning livelihood. Mere assertion of second ingredient of self employment is not enough.
4. The mere fact that according to complainant himself, OP allured him of assured return and undertook to make payment of Rs.55/- per sq. ft. p.m. for super area of 500 sq. ft. for 60 months. Assured return rules out possibility of self employment. This matter recently reached National Commission in CC No. 246 of 2013 titled as Ms. Preeti Arora vs.M/s A.R.N. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. decided on 06.04.17. In para 15 it has been held that intention of the complainant while booking space in the subject project was not to use the same for earning her livelihood by way of self employment. Had this been the intention, the complainant would not have entered into lease clause with the Opposite Party. Thus complainant did not fall within explanation to section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act.
5. Applying the said law the complaint is dismissed in limini.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)