Delhi

StateCommission

CC/183/2014

MS. PAYAL GROVER - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

          Date of Arguments: 20/02/2017

Date of Order: 28/02/2017

 

Complaint Case No. 183/2014

In the matter of:

Ms. Payal Grover

W/o Sh. Kulbhushan Grover

R/o 35/19, West Patel Nagar

New Delhi-110008                                 .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Omaxe Ltd.

Omaxe House-7, Shopping Centre

Kalka Ji, New Delhi-110019

 

2. The Managing Director

Omaxe Ltd.

Omaxe House-7, Shopping Centre

Kalka Ji, New Delhi-110019

 

3. Mr. RohtasGoyal

Omaxe Ltd.

Omaxe House-7, Shopping Centre

Kalka Ji, New Delhi-110019                 ..........Opposite Parties

 

                                                                  

CORAM

 

O P GUPTA                    -                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ANIL SRIVASTAVA       -                  MEMBER

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

O P GUPTA – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         This order will dispose of application dated 06.10.2015 under section 26 Consumer Protection Act read with order 7 rule 11 CPC moved by the OP for dismissal of complaint. Plea of the OP is that the complainant had booked four units mentioned in Para 4 of the application. Out of them the complainant has sold unit mentioned at sub para a and sub para c. Thus he is an investor and not a consumer.
2.         The complainant has filed reply opposing the application. However it has not denied the allegation of booking of four units or sale of two units.
3.         We have heard the arguments. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has submitted that admittedly the OP had cancelled one unit and two have been sold by the complainant, so what remains is one unit. Therefore he is a consumer.
4.         OP has reliedupon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Savi Gupta v. OmaxeAzorium Developers Pvt. Ltd. IV (2012) CPJ 327 in which it was held that in case of purchase of more than one unit, the person cannot be said to be a consumer. His object is to sell the same in grey market whenever the prices rise. He has also placed reliance on decision of this Commission in Complaint Case Nos. 49/2013 and 50/2013 both titled as AshaSaini v. Omaxe Ltd. decided on 30.07.2013 in which similar view was taken.
5.         We are conscious of the fact that in some cases different view has been taken by holding that merely because the complainant has booked more than one unit, he cannot be excluded from the definition of ‘consumer’. But in those judgments also it has been held that if OP specifies that complainant has sold similar units earlier, he stands excluded from the definition of ‘consumer’.
6.         In these cases, admittedly the complainant has already sold two units, so he is not a ‘consumer’. The complaint is dismissed. However the complainant would be at liberty to take recourse to civil remedy after excluding the time spent in present proceedings as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in LaxmiEngineeringWorks v. PSG Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1.
7.         Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs.
8.         File be consigned to Records.

       (O P GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

                                                                (ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

             MEMBER