1.Mr. Jitin Singh Ghai, son of Ajpal Singh Ghai, Resident of 2, Turnberry LN, Plainview NY 11803, U.S.A.

2.Mr. Darshani Ghai, wife of Mr. Jitin Singh Ghai, Resident of 2, Turnberry LN, Plainview NY 11803, U.S.A.

Both through their General Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Ajpal Singh Ghai, Resident of House No.1336, Sector 34C, Chandigarh.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1.M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, ECE House, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its CEO.

2.M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, SCO 120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Local Branch Head.

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:Sh. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for the complainants.

                  , Advocate for the Opposite 

JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.    

              Thereafter, the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement, Annexure C-1, was executed between the parties, on 31.03.2008. It was stated that, as per the payment plan, the complainants paid the total sale consideration of the said unit, to the Opposite Parties. Possession of the said unit, was to be handed over to the complainants, within 36 months, with a grace period of 3 months, from the date of signing the said Agreement. Since, the unit, in question, 

2.             

3.     The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complainants purchased the unit, in question, in their commercial project, known as Central Plaza at Mohali Hills. It was further pleaded that since the complainants are permanent residents of U.S.A., and are engaged in occupation and business there, as such, they never intended to use the said shop, for earning their livelihood, by way of self employment. It was further pleaded that, thus,the complainants did not fall within the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement, Annexure C-1,It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.           

5.           

6.            

7.            

8.            Admittedly, the complainants purchasedshop No.4, Top Floor, measuring 1380 sq. ft. of area, in Central Plaza at Mohali Hills, Sector 105, SAS Nagar, District Mohali (Punjab), for the total sale consideration of Rs.42,26,804/-. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that out of the total  has already been paid. Both the complainants are residents of U.S.A. In the complaint, it was not stated by the complainants, as to since when, they had been residing, in U.S.A.; as to whether, they were permanent residents of U.S.A.; and which business/profession, they were doing there. Similarly Mr. Ajpal Singh Ghai, General Power of Attorney Holder of the complainants, in his affidavit, did not state anything, about this factum. However, at the time of arguments, the Counsel for the complainants submitted that the complainants have been residing in U.S.A., for the last 14 years, and are Chartered Accountants. No doubt, in the complaint, it was stated by the complainants, that they were intending to shift to India, and use the said shop, by way of self employment. However, they did not state even a single word, in the complaint, and even Mr. Ajpal Singh Ghai, General Power of Attorney Holder of the complainants, did not state even a single word, in his affidavit, as to which business, they wanted to run, in the shop, in question. No other document, was also produced, on the record, that the complainants, who had been residing, in U.S.A., for the last 14 years, as submitted by their Counsel, at the time of arguments, and were running their business, or pursuing profession, had ever intended to shift to India, with a view to use the shop, in question, for earning their livelihood, by way of self employment. In letter dated 28.03.2013 Annexure C-2, at page 78, Ajpal Singh Ghai, attorney of the complainants, interalia, stated that “I had plans to start a business at commercial property, or at minimum rent it out”. This clearly shows that the intention of the complainants was to rent out the shop, in question, to somebody, and not to use the same for earning livelihood, by way of self-employment. Since, the complainants are permanent residents of U.S.A., for the last 14 years, and have been doing their business/pursuing profession, the mere averment, in the complaint, to the effect that they wanted to permanently shift to India, with a view to use the unit/shop, by way of self employment, to do some business, could not be said to be correct.In,a Constitution Bench of the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that if the goods are purchased or the services are availed of, by the complainant, for any commercial purpose, then it does not fall within the definition of a consumer, and consequently, the consumer complaint will not be maintainable, in such cases.,a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, similar principle of law, was laid down. The complainants, in our considered opinion, purchased the shop, in question, a commercial property, for renting out the same, or selling the same, as and when there was escalation, in prices. They, thus, purchased the shop for commercial purpose to earn huge profits. Under these circumstances, the complainants did not qualify as consumers, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 

9.           Umesh Ahuja M/s Emaar MGF Land Private Ltd.,

10.        Sectionof the Act, the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable.

11.            Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act^.

12.               

13.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.        

Pronounced.

06/06/2014

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

Rg.