JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Both the complainants in this complaint, applied for a flat with M/s Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., OP-1. Possession of the said flat has not been given to the complainants, in time. Thereafter, this Complaint was filed before this Commission, on 09.05.2013, with the following prayers:- ) For the Opposite Party No. 1 to give lawful possession of the Apartment/Flat to the Complainant after completion of all finishing works of the said flat. b) For the Opposite Party No. 1 not to carry out any & all kinds of construction on the said plot during pendency of the present proceedings and further direct the Opposite Party No. 2 to carry out detailed inspection of the premises and submit a report to the Honle Commission as regards status of all constructible areas. To ascertain the extent of illegal construction carried out by Opposite Party No. 1 on the said plot. c) For the Opposite Party No. 1 from offering unlawful possession without execution of sub-lease rights in favor of the allottees and/or to create any third party rights on the said project, further sell/allot any space in any of the towers of Group Housing project at Plot NO. GH-01,02 & 03 situated in Sec-93B, Noida during the pendency of the present proceedings. d) For the Opposite Party No. 1 to fulfill all its contractual dues towards Opposite Party No. 2. e) For the Opposite Party No. 2 to stay any additional increase in FAR or any other scheme that is against larger public interest or grant of further Occupation Certificate for remaining part of the project on the said plot till the pendency of the present proceedings. f) For the Opposite Party No. 1 to deduct from maintenance security any amount for maintenance of the said project till sub-lease rights are not created and Physical possession is not handed over to Complainant. g) For the Opposite Party No. 1 to de-commission/ install the Cell Phone towers due to high health risk from constant radiation for the residents. h) For the Opposite Party No. 1 to install water purifier plant as per state/Govt. norms thereby eliminating the health hazard for thousands of families. 2. However, the principal question which falls for consideration is, hether, the complainants are the onsumers We have heard Sh. Ashish Kaul, the Complainant, who appeared in person. During the course of arguments he admitted that he has also applied for four more flats, which are detailed here as under:- ) Flat No. 204, Greenwich-A, Grand Omaxe, Sector 93 B, Noida (U.P.) in the name of Mr. Ashish Kaul & Mrs. Ved Kumari; i.e., the Flat which is subject matter of the present complaint. b) Flat No. 303, Equator Tower, Omaxe Heights, Sector 86, Faridabad (Haryana) in the name of Mr. Ashish Kaul & Mrs. Ved Kumari c) Flat No. 306, Tuntex Tower, Omaxe Heights, Sector 86, Faridabad (Haryana) in the name of Mr. Ashish Kaul; d) Flat No.105, Highcliff Tower, Omaxe Heights, Sector 86, Faridabad (Haryana) in the name of Mrs. Ved Kumari 3. The complainant argued that he is a onsumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He admitted that he has booked all these flats for investment and for taking care of his family in the future. He explained that as a matter of fact, the above said property consists of two rooms only. He was married subsequently. Their family stands increased. He wants a three-room flat. He explained that the flat in dispute is situated in maxe Grand Woodat Sector 93 B, Noida, which is a flat, having three bed-rooms. He explained that his family will feel comfortable in that flat and other four flats are yet to be allotted in their favour. It is mentioned here that out of four flats, three flats are in the joint names of the complainants and the 4th flat is in the name of Sh. Ashish Kaul. 4. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. It is apparent that the complainants are nvestorsand they are not onsumers This view stands fortified by various following authorities. 5. 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. This 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. They may take advantage of the ruling of the 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 these complaints before this Commission. 8. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the complainants are not the consumers. Consequently, this complaint is not maintainable. Further, before dismissing the complaint, as agreed by the counsel for the parties, we have taken care of this fact, that the complainants would get the possession of flat in question so that his o-called large family should not suffer due to the paucity of accommodation. On 26.02.2014, we have passed the following orders:- omplainant No. 2 is present in person. Counsel for OP-1 is present. None for OP-2. As prayed by the parties, the opposite party is ready to give the possession without prejudice. Get the registration of the flat done without any further costs. No further charges for registration will be charged. The Registration be done on 03.03.2014. Complainants are directed to appear before the Registrar, on 03.03.2014 at 10 A.M. as per letter written to them on 21.02.2014.Copy is furnished to the complainant. This order is passed as per the compromise reached between the parties. Arguments on I.A. No. 36/2014 heard. Reserved for orders 9. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.