State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Earnest Investment And Trading Pvt Ltd vs Lodha Developers (P) Ltd & Ors on 10 July, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/12/162
1. EARNEST INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR PADMANABH
JAJODIA WARDEN HOUSE 340 J J ROAD BYCULLA
MUMBAI 400008
2. RAINBOW HOLDING AND TRADING PVT.LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR PADMANABH
JAJODIA WARDEN HOUSE 340 J J ROAD BYCULLA
MUMBAI 400008
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. LODHA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OR MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. MR.MANGAL PRABHAT LODHA, DIRECTOR
3. MR.ABHISHEK M. LODHA
4. MR.ABHINANDAN M. LODHA
OFFICE AT LODHA EXCELUS APOLLO MILLS COMPOUND
N M JOSHI MARG MAHALAKSHMI MUMBAI 400011
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.A. V. PATWARDHAN , Advocate for the Complainant ORAL ORDER Per Honble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, President Heard Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for the complainant.
Complainants are M/s.Earnest Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Rainbow Holding and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Both the complainants are incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and they are sister concerns. They are in the business of constructing and developing houses, flats, villas as well as shops and commercial buildings, etc. and they are builders and developers. Complainants agreed to purchase under an Agreement for sale dated 03/09/2009, Villa no.28 in Lodha Goldcrest Project which is upcoming at Lonavala and being developed and built up by the opponents. This bungalow or villa has been agreed to be purchased for the purpose of rest house for the Directors and the Managers of the complainant companies. Thus, the property which is purchased by complainant companies for the purpose of rest house of their directors and the Managers or in other words as a part of their business activity. Main business of the companies is located at Mumbai. Head office of the companies is located at Mumbai. Therefore the premises which are being used are not being provided to the directors by way of residence but they are, obviously, being provided as a facility at Lonvala to enjoy the holidays in vacation and/or when they had occasion to visit Lonavala for any companies work. Even though it can be said that it is for the recreation, the benefit of the recreation is for the benefit of the companies because recreation ultimately revitalize and reenergizes the persons so as to discharge duties more commercially and effectively of the companies.
We have analysed this for this purpose that ultimately the enjoyment of the said property is to facilitate the commercial activity of the complainant being at Mumbai and, therefore, the very agreement is for a commercial purpose. Object of the purchase of the bungalow is not for residential purpose but it is a commercial one and, therefore, complainant cannot be said to be a consumer. No doubt in respect the properties which are purchased for commercial purpose, if they are being used for self employment and source of income of that property is principally for the purpose of livelihood of the consumer, then in spite of the fact that the transaction is commercial one, the consumer complaint can be tenable. However, since both the complainants are private limited companies, there is no question of personal employment of these juristic persons and apart from that the bungalows income is not a principal source of income of the juristic persons viz. complainants. Therefore, other exceptional circumstances which are contemplated under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not applicable to the present complainants. Complaint itself is not tenable, complainants not being a consumer as defined under definition 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We, therefore, refuse to entertain the complaint.
Complaint is hereby rejected.
Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 10th July, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] Judicial Member [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER Ms.