M/S Shri Geeta Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Lodha Healthy Constructions And Developers Private Limited

THE key question is "Whether the complainant is a "consumer " and falls under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and Explanation appended to it? ".

EVEN if a Private Limited Co. is treated, as a "person ", will the purchase of space/residential flats can be for earning its livelihood?. The instant complaint has been filed by M/s. Geeta Infratech Pvt.Ltd. The complainant is a registered Company under Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at 83, Nootan Cloth Market, Raipur, Ahmedabad - 380 022. They were looking for a facility of its Director, Manisha S.Ranasaria ''s family ''s comfortable living. They entered into an agreement with M/s.Lodha Bellezza Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Kukatpally Village, Hyderabad. They were to provide various facilities in the Lodha Bellezza Complex as listed in the Brochure. The complainant paid a substantial amount towards the price of the flat. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the Director is buying flat for her own personal use. But there is no inkling in the agreement entered into between the parties. The agreement clearly states that the same is entered into between the OP and M/s. Geeta Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 83, Nootan Cloth Market, Raipur, Ahmedabad - 380 022. It is, thus, clear that any officer of the Complainant Company will stay on, who will transact the business for and on behalf of the complainant company. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant is a "consumer ".

IN Monstera Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - IV (2010) CPJ 299 (NC), there was delay in handing over possession. The complainant was a Private Limited Company. The complainant was nominated for allotment of showroom. Possession not given. Sale Deed was not executed. Deficiency of service was alleged. It was held that even if Private Limited Co. is treated as a "person ", purchase of space could not be for earning for its livelihood. Purchase of space was for "commercial purpose ".

IN Satish Kumar Gajanand Gupta Vs. M/s. Srushti Sangam Enterprises (India) Ltd., and Anr., Concumer Complaint No.296 of 2011, decided by National Commission, on 03.07.2012, it was held that the business of the complainant extended upto Mumbai. In order to save on the expenditure incurred on his stay, in hotels, at Mumbai, during his business trips, he was interested in buying some flats in Mumbai. He took two flats. It was held, "Clearly, the transaction is relatable to his business activity and, therefore, it will fall in the category of commercial purpose, which has been taken out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, vide Amendment Act No.62 of 2002, effective from 15th of March, 2003. This Commission in the case of Jag Mohan Chhabra & Anr. Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. IV (2007) CPJ 199 (NC), in a somewhat similar case, had held that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It had, therefore, disposed of the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach Civil Court. The said order has since been upheld by the Hon ''ble Supreme Court, as Civil Appeal No.6030-5031 of 2008, filed before the Supreme Court, stands dismissed vide the Apex Court ''s order dated 29.09.2008 ". Against the said order of this Commission, Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal No. 6229 of 2012, Satish Kumar Gajanand Gupta Vs. Srushti Sangam Enterprises (I) Ltd and Anr.) was filed before the Hon ''ble Supreme Court. The Hon ''ble Apex Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition, vide order dated 14.09.2012.

IN M/s.Purusharath Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Uppal Housing Ltd. and Anr., Consumer Complaint No.112 of 2012, decided by National Commission, on 05.07.2012, it was held that : "Learned counsel for the complainant argued that these flats will be used for the officers of the Company. Learned counsel for the complainant could not deny that those officers would transact the commercial activity. A bare-look on this Resolution clearly goes to show that these flats would be meant for ''commercial purposes ''.

AGAINST the said order of this Commission, Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal Nos.8990-8991 of 2012, M/s. Purusharath Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Uppal Housing Ltd. Plaza and Anr.) was filed before the Hon ''ble Supreme Court. The Hon ''ble Apex Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition, vide order dated 07.01.2013. The complaint, accordingly, is dismissed in limine.