JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The main controversy swirls around the question, hether, the complainants can invest, by purchasing more than one apartment, from the Opposite Parties? Are they, consumers?. The complainants have filed a lengthy complaint, running into 42 pages, however, the sum and substance of the above said controversy lies in the above said question. 2. This is a case of two senior citizens, Smt.Madhu Saigal, aged about 73 years and her husband, Mr.Ashok Saigal, aged about 76 years. They have invested their life savings to the tune of over Rs.2.00 crores, in purchase of two apartments, in a Project in the hope of spending their retirement life, with their son, Sh.Amit Saigal. Unfortunately, their son, passed away. It is alleged that they have suffered at the hands of Builder, OP1, at every stage, right from the inception, till now. Although, they have paid the entire amount, yet, the possession of the flats have not been given to them. Ms.Aditi Saigal, is grand-daughter and sole-surviving descendant of complainant No.1 and her husband, having been substituted as a co-allottee, in place of her son, Sh.Amit Saigal. 3. However, the question revolves around the controversy, whether, the complainants are entitled to invest in more than one apartment? Although the complainants have not stated in so many words, as to how many apartments, they were going to purchase, yet, it appears that they were going to purchase two apartments as is apparent from the following pleas: n view of the illegal charges, dues payable on possession were bumped up from Rs.34,94,965/- (i.e. Rs. 17,47,482.50 per subject apartment) to Rs.52,24,267.32, an excess charge of Rs.17,29,302.32 beyond the original agreement 4. The complainant No.1 is the owner of Aditi Apartments, 52/42, Tashkent Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad. These two apartments are Nos. 2 & 3, respectively. The total area of the plot in dispute of both the apartments is 4,450 sq.ft. (1625 x 2 = 3250 + 600 x 2 = 1200) is The complaint was filed with the prayer to execute and register the apartments in question, in their favour, to compensate the complainants. Further, the present complaint was filed with 14 prayers which are detailed in the complaint itself. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainants are old-aged citizens, they are investors and they should be saved from the harassment and mental agony, coming from the OPs. 6. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. It is apparent that the complainants are nvestorsand they are otonsumers This view stands fortified by various following authorities. 7. This Commission, in case titled, Chilkuri Adarsh Vs. ESS ESS VEE Constructions, III (2012) CPJ 315, has held, as under :- rguments of the learned Counsel have been considered. However, we are of the view that the complaint as presented cannot be maintained before a Consumer Fora, like ours, as the agreement was for the construction of two showrooms, which obviously relate to commercial purpose and the complainant, therefore, will not come within the definition of a onsumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This has been the consistent view of this Commission. It has held that even when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises; it amounts to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose. It was further held, his Commission, in the case of Jagmohan Chabra and another Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., IV (2007) CPJ 199, in a somewhat similar case, held that the complaint was not maintainable, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It had, therefore, disposed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach Civil Court. The said order has since been upheld by the Honle Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 6030-6031 of 2008, filed before the Supreme Court which stands dismissed, vide Apex Court order dated 29.09.2008 8. This Commission, by a Bench, consisting of Justice J.M. Malik and Mr. Vinay Kumar in the case titled as rs. Savi Gupta Vs. Omaxe Azorim Developers Pvt. Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No.208 of 2012, decided on 01.10.2012, took the same view. 9. Again, this Commission, by a Bench, consisting of Justice J.M. Malik and Dr. S.M. Kantikar in Consumer Case Nos. 307 to 309 of 2012, titled M/s. Moran Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Ambience Private Ltd., decided on 02.09.2013, took the similar view, wherein it was held:- n the facts of the present case, we maintain the same view, and while dismissing the complaints, as not maintainable, reserve the rights of the complainants to approach the appropriate Civil Court to seek their remedy, if so advised 10. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the complainants are otonsumers Hence, this complaint is not maintainable, and is, therefore, dismissed. The complainants are, however, given liberty to approach the appropriate forum to seek redressal of their grievances, if so advised. They may take advantage of the ruling of the Honle Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583, to seek exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this complaint, before this Commission.