Emaar Mgf Land Limited vs Banga Constructions Private Limited

THIS Appeal by the Developer of a Commercial Complex, known as "Central Plaza" at Mohali Hills, SAS Nagar, Mohali, (Punjab), is directed against order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short ''the State Commission'') in Complaint no. C -11/20, whereby the Appellant has been proceeded against ex parte as, inspite of service of notice, it had remained unrepresented when the Complaint was taken up for hearing on that date.

WHEN the Appeal came up for consideration on 17.04.2014, we had asked learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant to satisfy us as to how in the first instance the Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in not delivering possession of four shops in the said Commercial Complex, was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'').

ACCORDINGLY , without going into the question as to whether or not the State Commission was justified in proceeding ex parte against the Appellant, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the above stated question. It is not in dispute that the Respondent Company had been allotted four units on different floors of the Complex, one Unit admeasuring 2209 sq.ft. and three units admeasuring 1477 sq.ft. each. Perhaps, not being satisfied with the progress in construction, the Respondent Company filed Complaint, against the Appellant inter alia praying for refund of the amounts deposited by them as sale consideration. As noted above, by the impugned order, the Appellant has been proceeded against ex parte. Having perused the documents on record, including the allotment letters, we are of the opinion that the said units had been acquired by the Respondent Company purely for commercial purpose and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the Respondent Company could be said to be a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. It is trite that the words "for any commercial purpose" used in the Section means that the goods purchased or services hired are used or proposed to be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. It is manifest that the four units booked by the Respondent Company with the Appellant were meant to be used in some activity directly intended to generate profit. We are unable to hold that the four units were acquired by the Respondent for earning its livelihood by means of self -employment falling within the ambit of explanation to the said Sub -section.

WE are, therefore, of the opinion that the Complaint filed by the Respondent Company under the Act was not maintainable as the Respondent Company was not a consumer covered under the Act. Consequently, we have no option but to dismiss the Complaint as not maintainable. We order accordingly, with liberty to the Respondent to approach any appropriate forum, except a Consumer Fora, for redressal of its grievance against the Appellant. As and when it chooses to take recourse to appropriate remedy, its prayer for exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the Complaint before the State Commission and this Commission in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act shall be considered by taking into consideration the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute, 1995 3 SCC 583.

THE Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.