National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Prithipal Singh Arora & Anr. vs M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 6 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 3562 OF 2017 1. PRITHIPAL SINGH ARORA & ANR. HOUSE NO-3041,SECTOR-35-D, CHANDIGARH - 160021 U.T 2. TRIATH PAL SINGH, HOUSE NO-3041,SECTOR-35-D CHANDIGARH-160021 U.T ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED ECE HOUSE, FIRST FLOOR, 28 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : MR. SUDHIR KATHPALIA, ADVOCATE For the Opp.Party :
Dated : 06 Feb 2018 ORDER
1.The instant complaint has been filed by Prithipal Singh Arora and Tirath Pal Singh alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party builder in respect of the commercial flat booked by them in the project "Central Plaza" to be developed by the opposite party.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the complainants on the issue of admissibility of the consumer complaint in particular as to the locus standi of the complainants to file the consumer complaint.
3. The term "Consumer" has been defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under: -
-2-"(d) "consumer" means any person who--
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"
4. On bare reading of the above it is clear that consumer is a person who buys goods or hires or avails of services for consideration but does not include a person who buys goods or hires or avails of services for commercial purpose.
-3-5. On perusal of the complaint, it transpires that it is admitted case of the complainants that they have booked the commercial units in the development project 'Central Plaza' undertaken by the opposite party no.1. Thus, it is clear that complainants have availed of services of the opposite party for commercial purpose, as such, in view of in-built exception in the definition of 'consumer', the complainants cannot be termed as consumers as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.
6. Learned counsel for the complainants has contended that case of the complainants is covered under the explanation to section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. On reading of the explanation, I find that it gives a restricted meaning to the term 'commercial purpose' and provides that 'commercial purpose' does not include use by a person of goods bought and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Thus, it is clear that in order to avail of benefit of the explanation, the complainants are required to show that they have booked the shops in question with intention to use the same exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment. In order to find out whether the complainants are covered in the explanation, it would be useful to have a look on the allegations made in para 6 of the complaint. Para 6 of the complaint is reproduced as under:-
-4-"It is indispensable to state that the complainants have till date paid an amount of Rs.71,60,620/- towards Unit No. CPM 14-A2-F0114. It is important to state that said units were purchased with a sole motive of earning their livelihood. The complainant Mr. Prithipal Singh Arora is a sole proprietor of Techno Services which deals with operation and maintenance of industrial equipments, Mr. Prithipal Singh Arora is in the said business since 2002 and at present 181 regular employees are working under his supervision and guidance. He has been running the said firm at rented premises at SCO-156-157, 3rd Floor, Sector-34, Chandigarh and is paying monthly rent to the tune of Rs.21,000/-. He also has two grown up daughters i.e. Ms. Manleen Kaur and Simran Kaur who assist him in his work. The said units were duly purchased to run their business from the said unit. Further, Mr. Tripat Pal Singh is also a retired banker and is currently dealing with giving financial advisers to his clients with respect to investment in different portfolios. He also has two elder daughters Rashmeet Kaur and Prabhleen Kaur. A copy of brochure of Techno Services alongwith documents of registration for service tax, provident fund, excise and customs, ESI registration, rent deeds and list of employees with details of their provident fund deposits is annexed hereto and marked as annexure C-5."
7. On bare reading of the above, it is clear that both the complainants are gainfully employed. Complainant no.1 is engaged in business of operation and maintenance of industrial equipments and at present he has 181 regular employees. Further, complainant no.2 is stated to be a retired banker currently engaged as a financial advisor with respect to the investment in different portfolios. Thus, it is clear that both the complainants are gainfully employed -5- and earning livelihood. Consequently, it cannot be said that they had booked the subject shops exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment. Counsel for the complainants have tried to wriggle out of the situation by arguing that actually complainants have grown up daughters and they had booked the shops with the intention to set up their business for livelihood. This is not specifically alleged in the complaint. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the explanation.
8. In view of the discussion above, it is clear that complainants are not consumers as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Therefore, they do not have locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. Complaint is accordingly rejected. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the complainant to avail of their remedy by approaching civil court or any other Fora having jurisdiction.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER