National Consumer Disputes Redressal
J.K.Aggarwal & Anr. vs M/S Three C Universal Developers (P) ... on 12 October, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 189 OF 2011 Shri J.K.Aggarwal ........ Complainants son of Shri J.C.Aggarwal r/o 101, Sukhdev Vihar New Delhi-110025 2. Pooja Jain d/o Shri J.K.Aggarwal r/o 101, Sukhdev Vihar New Delhi-110025 Vs. M/s Three C Universal Developers (P) Ltd. ......... Opposite Party Tech Boulevard Central Block, Plot No.6 Sector 127, Noida-201301 BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR.S.K.NAIK, MEMBER For the Complainants : Shri Shivram, Advocate Dated : 12th October, 2011 ORDER
PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-builder, the above-named complainants have filed the present complaint seeking direction on the opposite party-builder to allot commercial space measuring 3000 sq.ft between 3rd & 5th floor, front main entrance facing and corner area in an upcoming project as appearing in the Economic Times dated 31.07.2010 & 10.12.2010 besides claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation. The complaint has been made with the arguments and allegations that complainant no.1 Shri J.K.Aggarwal being a senior citizen and father of complainant no.2 who does not have any independent income and with a view to settle her in life, booked commercial space of 300 sq.ft. in the upcoming Boulevard Project near DND Flyway floated by the opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- on 08.092010 towards the initial 5% cost of the space to the opposite party which was acknowledged by the opposite party by means of receipt dated 08.12.2010 thereby stating that allotment was purely provisional and did not entitle the applicant to claim any right, title or interest over the registration.
However, no terms and conditions of allotment were made available to the complainant despite being asked several times by the complainant. This is stated to be an act of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party beside adoption of unfair trade practice. Complainant not getting any confirmed allotment has filed the present complaint seeking the above reliefs.
2. We have heard Mr. Shivram, Advocate, learned counsel representing the complainant on the question of entertainability of the present complaint.
3. On going by the letter (Annexture C-2) dated September 8, 2010, placed on record, we enquired from the counsel for the complainant as to whether the commercial space booked by the complainant was for commercial use of the complainant or otherwise, because from perusal of the letter, it is manifest that complainant no.1 had remitted a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- by means of cheque in the capacity of Chairman and Managing Director Pooja Forge Limited, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Counsel for the complainant submitted that though the space booked by the complainant no.1 was commercial space in an upcoming commercial project floated by the opposite party, still complainant no.1 had booked the said space for starting some business jointly with his daughter for earning their livelihood by means of self employment. Such an averment has also been made in the opening paragraph of the complaint. In our view, the above averment made by the complainant is prima facie incorrect and has been made only with a view to bring the case within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We say so because on perusal of letter dated September 8. 2010, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the space was booked by complainant no.1 for and on behalf of a company in his capacity as a Chairman and Managing Director of company and for the use of the company. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act as it stands amended by the Amending act 60 of 2002 effective from 15.03.2003 makes it abundantly clear that any person who avails the services from a service provider for commercial purpose is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of a consumer fora for the redressal of his grievance. In the case in hand as per the complainants own averments and allegations, it is manifest that complainant had availed the services of the opposite party purely for commercial purpose and, therefore, they do not fall within the definition of consumer as it stands after amendment. Complainants are, therefore, not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission for the redressal of their grievance. It appears to us that present complaint is nothing but an attempt to misuse the process of this Commission with the sole object of saving court fee payable on a civil suit.
4. For the above stated reasons, we dismiss the present complaint as not maintainable before this Commission, however, with liberty to the complainants to pursue their remedy before the competent court / Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.
Sd/-J (R.C. JAIN) ( PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/ (S.K.NAIK) MEMBER Am/