Delhi

StateCommission

CC/11/74

DALJIT SINGH & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIVERSAL BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision : 17.03.2015

Complaint Case No.74/2011

     

 

1. Sh. Daljit Singh

S/o Sh. Inderpal Singh

2. Sh. Mani Karan Singh

S/o Sh. Daljit Singh

 

Both resident of

13/5, Ashok Nagar, Delhi             ....Complainants

                                                      

VERSUS

M/s Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

to be served at its registered office at

102, Antriksh Bhawan

22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001

 

and its corporate office at

 

Universal Trade Tower

8.  

Gurgaon Sohna Road

Gurgaon 122101                     ....Opposite Parties

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.         The case of the complainants is that they booked a shop with the OP Universal Buildwell (in short the OP) measuring 350 sq. ft. on the ground floor of their project located at Golf Course Road Extension Sector 59 Gurgaon. The complainant paid in all an amount of Rs. 6 Lac to the OP on May 2010. Shop bearing No G-63, was provisionally allotted to the complainants on 01.06.2010. Buryers’ agreement dt. 25.07.2010 was executed between the parties. Grievance of the complainants is that they did not receive the ‘buyers’ agreement’ till July 2010. They however, received a letter of demand from the OPs demanding an amount of Rs. 2,70,975/- (Approx.). Despite several visits to the office of the OP, the complainants were not given any satisfactory reply. OPs stating OPs cancelled the booking of the complainants. The complainants sent a legal notice dt. 31.01.2011 calling upon the OPs to withdraw their letter of cancellation and accept the outstanding dues. Contention of the complainants is that the legal notice too was not replied to. The complainants have prayed for directions to the OP for cancellation of the letter of cancellation of allotment. Prayer for directions to the OPs for respecting buyers’ agreement is made. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lac has also been prayed for.
2.         The OP in its written version has raised preliminary objection that the complainants are not ‘consumer’ within the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ as contained in section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The OP has relied upon the following case law:-

1. M/s Richa & Co. V. DLF Universal Ltd. [(2012) NCDRC 671)].
2. Singhal Finstock (P) Ltd. & Anr. V. JAYPEE Infratech & Ors. [(2012 NCDRC 672)].
3. M/s Purusharath Builders Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s Uppal Housing Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) NCDRC 333)].

3.         OP has admitted having received an amount of Rs. 6 Lac from the complainants towards the purchase of the shop in question. Contention of the OP is that the complainants failed to adhere to their financial commitment.
4.         Arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainants Sh. Kunal Cheema and the Counsel for the OP Sh. Dheeraj Manchanda were heard at length. Perusal of the complaint as well as the affidavit towards evidence filed by the complainants shows that it is not the case of the complainants that they intended to purchase the shop in question for earning their livelihood by means of their self employment. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act is reproduced below:-

2(d) “consumer” means any person who-

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. ³[hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ³[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person ⁴[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
5. [Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;]

5.         Purchase of the goods or availing services for commercial purpose knocks a person out of the ambit of the definition of consumer. The only exception to the aforesaid proposition is that such services are availed of exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment. Only then a case falls within the ambit of the expression ‘consumer’. The pleadings and evidence filed by the complainants do not state if the complainants wanted to use the shop in question for the purpose of their own livelihood. The complaint, therefore, is not maintainable. The same is hence dismissed.
6.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S C Jain)

•