NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/127/2013

Shri VIJAY KUMAR JAIN & ANR, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s JANTA LAND PROMOTERS LIMITED, - Opp.Party(s)

MR. N P SHARMA & MS. GIRIJA WADHWA,

24 May 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 127 OF 2013
 
1. Shri VIJAY KUMAR JAIN & ANR,
S/o late Shri R. D. Jain, 3011, Sector 20-D,
CHANDIGARH - 160020.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/s JANTA LAND PROMOTERS LIMITED,
Through its Managing Director, SCO 39-42, Sector 82, SAS Nagar,
MOHALI - 140306.
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Mr. N.P. Sharma, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :NEMO

Dated : 24 May 2013
ORDER

PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.          Counsel for the petitioner admits that this is a commercial plot but further argues that he has specifically mentioned in the affidavit that this is for the personal use of the son of the complainant to earn his livelihood. 

 

2.      The counsel for the complainant has tried to Wrench the facts from their real significance.  The complainants No. 1 & 2 are husband and wife respectively.  The paras 2, 3 & 4 of the complaint run as follows:-

“2.          That the complainant no. 1 earns his livelihood by way of Sale of Cloth from his only shop under the name & style of SS Traders, situated at SCO No. 22, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh UT, and has no other source of livelihood save for being a Cloth Merchant.

3.          That the complainants in their family have two sons and one daughter, while the SCO Plot in question was purchased by the complainants jointly from the Opposite Party for settling their son namely Shri Adish Jain, who otherwise is in the same business of cloth retailing at Chandigarh under the name & style of Ashima Fashion however operating from a rented premises.

4.          That the Complainants in their own wisdom decided to purchase a SCO Plot for re-location of the shop of their son namely Shri Adish Jain, who otherwise was operating from a rented premises and wanted to give him the SCO Plot in question situated at Mohali, Punjab, which is adjacent to Chandigarh so that he may be able to earn his livelihood without the fear of rental escalation.”

3.      It therefore means that the complainants are not the consumers.  They are already earning their livelihood.  They have further spent more than Rupees one crore for settlement of their son, who, is already settled.  Their son has got no connection with this shop.  It is the exclusive property of his parents.  He is neither a consumer nor a complainant in this case.  The counsel for the complainant could not show to us that in the agreement or anywhere else it was unequivocally mentioned that this property was purchased for the benefit of their son.  This is an afterthought.  The plea submitted to this Commission that the complainants are consumers is nothing but a ruse to make sure that the complaint stands admitted.

4.      In a number of cases, it was held that a consumer is not entitled to two or more apartments (residential).  It is difficult to fathom how can complainants be given two or three shops for earning their livelihood.

5.      This Commission in the case of “Monstera Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., IV (2010) CPJ 299 (NC)” was pleased to hold that there was delay in possession.  Complainant was a private limited company.  Complainant was nominated for allotment of showroom.  Possession not given. Sale deed was not executed.  Deficiency in service was alleged.  Even if private limited company was treated as ‘person’ purchase of space could not be for earning its livelihood.  Purchase of space was for commercial purpose.

6.      It is interesting to note that the complainant himself admits that this is a Commercial plot.  Para No. 7 of the complaint clearly mentions that the complainant had applied for a Commercial Plot in Sector 90, Mohali, Punjab. 

7.      This Bench vide its order passed in the case of M/s Purusharth Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Uppal Housing Ltd. Plaza & Anr. dated 05.07.2012 observed in para 11, which is reproduced as follows:-

 

“11.  Learned counsel for the complainant argued that these flats will be used for the officers of the Company.  Learned counsel for the complainant could not deny that those officers would transact the commercial activity.  A

   bare-look on this Resolution clearly goes to show that   

   these flats would be meant for commercial purposes.”

 

8.          Aggrieved by that order the complainant approached the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order-dated 07.01.2013 dismissed the Civil Appeal Nos. 8990-91 of 2012. 

9.          Counsel for the complainant submits that the son of the complainant will be running cloth shop business for earning his livelihood.  This is no ground.  This is an attempt to hoodwink the law. 

The case is dismissed at the time of its admission.

 

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.