National Consumer Disputes Redressal
All India Consumer Protection Welfare ... vs India Exposition Mart Ltd. on 17 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 121 OF 2009 1. ALL INDIA CONSUMER PROTECTION WELFARE COUNCIL & ORS. Through its President,
Sh. Ramji Suneja,
A-2/36, Paschim Vihar Delhi 2. Expo Mart Exhibitors Association, Through its Secretary, Sh. Prince Malik
1st Floor, 13/17, W.E.A. Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005. 3. Confederation of India Exporters Through its President Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta,
206, Vishwa Sadan Building, 9, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110 058 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD. Through its Chairman,
Plot No.1,
210 Atlantic Plaza,
2nd Floor,
Local Shopping Centre,
Mayur Vihar,
Phase - 1 Delhi - 110 091 ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Rajat Gaur, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Susheel Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Rajeev Misra, Advocate
Dated : 17 Jun 2015 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1.The opposite party has set up a trade mark and exposition complex in Greater Noida on the land leased out by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. The opposite party allotted individual space in the aforesaid complex to exporters of various products such as handicrafts, handlooms, jute, carpet, silk etc. The complainants who are associations of exporters are aggrieved from the demand of External Development Charges which the opposite party is demanding from the exporters over and above the price of the space allotted to them. The complainants are also aggrieved from the extent of the area allotted to the exporters. Alleging deficiency in the services rendered to the exporters, the complainants are before this Commission seeking the following reliefs:
(a) The present complaint may be permitted to be filed on behalf & for the benefit of all the consumers/allottees, as their interest is directly involved.
(b) The opposite party company be directed to rectify the deficiency in the extent of the area of different spaces, and to deliver the possession of the respective spaces against the sale deeds to the different allottees, without further delay.
(c) The opposite party company be directed to immediately refund the amount of Rs. 4,73,68,735/- collected unlawfully towards external development charges to the allottees alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.
(d) The excessive/exorbitant demand towards the maintenance charges be directed as not payable to the opposite party for the period till the possession of the spaces is actually handed over. The said amount be directed to be payable only 1.2 times as per actuals from the date of possession.
(e) The opposite party be directed to furnish the details of the actual expenditure so incurred, so as to determine the amount payable towards maintenance charges.
(f) The opposite party be directed to pay compensation @ Rs. 25,000/- per member/allottee, total amounting to Rs. 2 Crore.
2. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party on several grounds including that the complainants are not consumers within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
3. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, provides that consumer means any person who buys goods or hires or avails services for a consideration, but does not include a person who buys goods or hires or avails such services for any commercial purpose. The explanation attached below the aforesaid provision excludes, from the ambit of commercial purpose, use by a person of the goods bought and used and the services availed exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
4. The members of the complainants who are exporters of different products are using the individual space allotted to them by the opposite party for the purpose of exhibiting their respective products. The products displayed by them are meant primarily for sale including exports outside India. The purpose is that the foreign buyers may see the goods displayed there and then place order with the exporters who have been allotted the aforesaid space by the opposite party. The obvious aim behind displaying the products meant for export is to earn profit by exporting those products to the overseas buyers. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the space allotted by the opposite party were not acquired or are not being used for a commercial purpose. The whole purpose of taking the space from the opposite party and displaying the products meant for exports is to make profits and therefore, the very aim of obtaining the allotment of the said space would be a commercial purpose.
5. As far as the explanation attached below Section 2(1)(d) is concerned, that would obviously not apply since it applies only to a case where an individual who is unemployed, purchases goods or avails services for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self-employment. There is no averment in the complaint that the members of the complainants were unemployed persons who had taken space from the opposite party for the purpose of carrying out export of goods from India to other countries.
6. For the reasons stated in above, I hold that since the services of the opposite party were availed for a commercial purpose, this Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this complaint does not come in the way of the complainants approaching any other forum for the redressal of their grievances in accordance with law.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER