C&C TOWERS LIMITED, & ANR. vs RAMAN KUMAR S/O RAM LAL

The complainant / respondent booked a commercial office space with the appellants for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. An allotment letter dated 2. 9.2010 was issued to the complainant, allotting the complainant office space for a consideration of Rs.3404500/-. The possession was to be delivered within 30 months from the date of start of lease period, after obtaining all necessary approvals and sanctions, subject to force majeure circumstances. It was further stipulated in the allotment letter that in case a delay in handing over of possession from the date of the start of the lease period, the builder shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. to the complainant for the period of delay beyond 30 months. Since the appellant failed to honour its contractual obligation of delivering possession of the unit, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the appellant which admitted the allotment made to the complainant but claimed that the complainant was not a consumer, he having purchased a commercial unit for speculative purposes.

The state Commission vide order dated 20.3.2017directed as under :-

" ( i) Deliver the possession of Unit No.3, Block/Tower C&C Capital, Floor 10 th , Super Area 619 sq. ft., complete in all respect after getting the completion certificate from the competent authority to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed by this Commission;

In case the possession is not delivered within the period referred in Clause No.(i) then OPs are directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,97,532/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the payment till the date of refund; and

(iii) Pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment;

(iv) Pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses."

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant who is already working in a company as stated by him in the amended complaint, cannot be said to be consumer. He relies upon the decision of this Commission in Ashok Thapar Vs. Supreme Indosaigon Associates & Anr. in CC No.31 of 2008 dated 19.11.2015. I, however, find no merit in the contention. The complainant had clearly stated in para 3 of the amended complaint that though he was working as employee of M/s Richi Travels, Jalandhar he had planned to earn his livelihood after leaving the job and therefore was searching shop/office space in order to earn his livelihood by leaving the job and starting work in the said shop/office space. From the aforesaid statement contained in the complaint, it is evident that the complainant had booked the office space in the project of the appellant for the purpose of earning his livelihood by quitting the job with Richi Travels, Jalandhar once he got possession of the said shop/office space from the appellant and earn his livelihood by working in the said shop/office space in his own right. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

As far as merits of the case are concerned, the booking was made by the complainant way back on 2.9.2010 and almost 7 years have since expired. The learned counsel for the appellant states that they not in a position to offer possession of the unit booked by the complainant. The State Commission has been rather lenient with the appellant by not awarding any compensation for the delay in offering delivery of the possession though it has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him. This is despite the fact that even under contractual obligation, the appellant was required to pay interest @ 6% p.a. to the complainant. The order passed by the State Commission therefore does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.