JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Counsel for the complainant is present.

2.      Mrs. Nirmal Pal Virdee is an NRI. She purchased entire shop which was interlinked with all the three floors. The value of the shop was worth Rs.3,94,03,168/-. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2,93,76,811/-. She applied for the said shop in the year 2008. She is a permanent resident of UK. She had a beauty saloon in UK which she has closed due to commitment to her children. She wanted to open a beauty school and saloon for her independent income and livelihood. All the four floors were purchased with the intention to provide space for beauty saloon and school such as ground floor for waiting lobby, entertainment and display of services, the first floor for providing SPA services, second floor was to be assigned for SAUNA bath and male services and finally the third floor was to be assigned as beauty school. All the four floors were to be used as one unit comprising a modern beauty saloon and school. The said shops were purchased from M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd.. The complaint was filed in this Commission on 06-04-2016 with the following prayers:

(a)     allow the present complaint;

(b)     direct the opposite party to refund the entire amount paid along towards the unit bearing its Nos.CPM-42-B3-BG042, CPM-42-B3-F0142, CPM-42-B3-F0242 and CPM-42-B3-F-0342 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till actual realization;

(c)     opposite party may be further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- for loss of employment opportunity, mental harassment and unfair trade practices; and

(d)     opposite party may also be directed to pay the cost of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      It is interesting to note that she is not asking for possession of the shops. She is asking for refund of the money. Counsel for the complainant explains that no headway has been made till now. He further explains that the construction has been started, but it has not yet been completed. Therefore, the complainant is asking for refund. It is surprising to note that almost eight years have elapsed, the complainant has not taken any steps to shift to India. She is living in UK along with her family members. Her so called family commitments appear to be an eyewash. In a recent judgment in SLP (C) No.31049 of 2015, Ganesh Chand Sharma Vs. Regional Manager, UP State Industrial, decided on 20-11-2015 the Apex Court while upholding the judgment of this Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant was not entitled for an industrial plot.

4.      The complainant has purchased as many as four shops. She cannot run the four shops at one time as one cannot ride four horses at one time. She will have to employ at least 10 persons in each shop i.e. 40 persons in all. This is not a case for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. Thus, it is established that the complainant is not a consumer and, therefore, she has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. Thus, the complaint is hereby dismissed. The complaint is, however, given liberty to approach the appropriate forum/civil court as per law.