National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. vs M/S. Vipul Ltd. on 11 May, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 276 OF 2015 1. ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. VIPUL LTD. ...........Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Complainant No.1 in person with Mr.K K Jha, Advocate For the Opp.Party :
Dated : 11 May 2015 ORDER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
Complainants Rohit Chaudhary and Mrs. Prachi Chaudhary have filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in respect of commercial space booked by them in the development project "Vipul World Commercial", Sohna Road, Gurgaon undertaken by the opposite party. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainants booked the office space with the sole purpose of their self employment and running business for livelihood for themselves and their family members.
2. Taking note of the fact that the complainants admittedly have booked a commercial space, we have heard arguments on the issue of locus standi of the complainants to raise a consumer dispute.
3. It may be noted that with a view to have a clarity of facts, we recorded statement of complainant no.1 on Oath wherein he has stated that earlier he was engaged in the business of caustic soda as a dealer of M/s Reliance Industries and presently he is engaged in the business of investment in property.
4. Before adverting to the submissions of complainants on the issue of locus standi, it would be useful to have a look on relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, the Act) Section 2 (b) of the Act defines the term "complainant" as under:
(b) "complainant" means-- (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1of 1956)or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government, (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint;
5. As the complaint has been filed by the individuals, namely, Rohit Chaudhary and Prachi Chaudhary, it is clear that in order to be covered under the above noted definition of complainant, they are supposed to be the "consumer" as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.
6. The term "consumer" is defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act as under:
(d) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
7. On reading of the above, it is clear that consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of services for consideration whether paid or to be paid in future. Section itself provides an exception that if the goods bought or the services hired or availed are for commercial purpose, then the person would not be termed as "consumer" for the purpose of the Act.
8. The explanation to this section gives a restricted meaning to the term "commercial purpose "by providing that "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought or services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.
Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that complainants have specifically alleged that they had booked the commercial space for the sole purpose of their self employment and running some business to earn livelihood. Therefore, they are squarely covered under the exception carved out by the explanation and as such, consumer dispute raised by the complainant is maintainable.
9. We do not agree with the aforesaid contention. On careful reading of the explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, it is clear that in order to take advantage of the explanation, the complainant is required to establish that the services availed by him were exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self employment. In the instant case, from the statement of complainant no.1, who is husband of complainant no.2, recorded today in the Court, it is clear that earlier complainant no.1 was running a dealership of Reliance Industries for earning his livelihood and presently he is engaged in business of investment in property. From this statement, it is evident that commercial space was booked by the complainants with an eye on earning profit due to escalation of price. Since the complainant was already running his livelihood from his business, it cannot be said that he had booked the commercial space solely for the purpose of earning livelihood by self employment. Thus, in our view, the explanation is of no help to the complainants and they are not the consumers as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d). As the complainants are not the consumers in view of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, they could not have maintained the consumer complaint. Thus, in our view the complainants have no locus standi to file the consumer complaint.
10. Learned counsel for the complainants in order to wriggle out of the situation has referred to the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Commission in the matters of Kwality Colonisers Private Ltd. Vs. Sunita Bali & Anr. 2014 SCC Online NCDRC 647 and in the matter of Kushal K Rana Vs. M/s DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. 2014 SCC Online NCDRC 564. The aforesaid judgments are of no avail to the complainants because the said judgments are based upon their own peculiar facts and circumstances. In the instant case, as per the statement of complainant no. 1, it is clear that complainant was self engaged in the business and earning his livelihood. Therefore, the explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) is not applicable to the him
11. In view of the discussion above, the consumer complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER