Supenath Ramaji Patil vs Surendrakumar Maghraj Sethi

THE key point of discussion in this case is whether the complainant, Sh. Supenath Ramaji Patil is a consumer? Shri Surendrakumar Meghraj Sethi, the OP in this case transacts the business of selling plots. The complainant Supenath Patil is a practising Advocate. Both the parties entered into an agreement to sell 36 plots in favour of the complainant which are situated at Moja Ghuggus, Tehsil Ghoghas, District Chandrapur. The consideration for the sale of the plots was settled at Rs. 21,13,055. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 to the OP on 20.1.2006. It was agreed that the balance consideration was to be paid before 20.8.2006. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs. 1 lakh on 4.4.2006, Rs. 2,50,000 on 12.4.2006 and Rs. 25,000 on 6.6.2006, total being Rs. 8,25,000. The appellant executed sale deed of 10 plots worth Rs. 2,03,000 in favour of the complainants and others. Thereafter, the OP cancelled the agreement. The grouse of the complainant is that he has sustained a loss of Rs. 6,21,400. The complainant issued notice to the opposite party but it was returned back. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

THE main defence set up by the OP was that the appellant is not a consumer, however, the District Forum partly allowed the claim and directed the OP to repay the amount of Rs. 1,31,674 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. with effect from 6.6.2006 within 30 days. The appeal was preferred before the State Commission which was accepted and the complaint was dismissed. We have heard the respondent in person. He has filed written submissions. It was argued that the State Commission assumed that the applicant is not a consumer. This point was not raised in written statement. The complainant did not purchase the plot for commercial purpose. The State Commission wrongly assumed that the applicant has sold 10 plots.

ALL these arguments are bereft of merit. The written statement itself mentions: "As mentioned earlier the contents of the present application are false and misleading the Hon ''ble Court. In fact the applicant in order to earn profit and for doing business of plot on 20.1.2006 had entered with me into Visar. "

THE complainant has, however, failed to explain the present status of those 10 plots which are alleged to have been sold by him. The silence on his part is pernicious. The State Commission has quoted Section 21(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and came to the conclusion that these plots were not purchased exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. He has also cited authority reported in Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Indu Ahuja, reported in III (2011) CPJ 115 (NC), where it was held that discrepancies pertaining to purchase of plot for investment, the purchaser is not entitled to any relief under Consumer Protection Act. In Jag Mohan Chhabra and Anr. v. DLF Universal Ltd., IV (2007) CPJ 199 (NC), it was held: "We have heard Mr. K.P.S. Rao for the complainants on admission. Evidently, ground, first and second floors in Town Houses and apartment No. 308B in Hamilton Court were purchased by the complainants for earning profits and transaction is thus relatable to commercial purpose and complainants not being the ''Consumer '' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint itself is not maintainable under the Act. Moreover, for adjudicating the claim made, voluminous evidence will be needed and the complaint, therefore, cannot be decided in summary procedure under the Act. Hence, the complaint is disposed of with liberty reserved to the complainants to approach the Civil Court to seek the recovery for the amount claimed for the opposite party. "

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 29.9.2008.

IN Satish Kumar Gajanand Gupta v. Srushti Sangam Enterprise (India) Ltd. and Another, III (2012) CPJ 264 (NC), it was held, we say so because as per his own admission the complainant is a resident of Delhi and he intends to purchase some permanent accommodation at Mumbai for his stay during his business visits to save on the expenditure incurred in hotels. For that purpose, he has booked not one but two flats. 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. The Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 6229 of 2011 vide its order dated 14.9.2012. In the facts of the present case, we maintain the same view and while dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable reserve the right of the complainant to approach the appropriate Civil Court to seek his remedy, if so advised. He may take advantage of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), to seek exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this complaint before this Commission. Revision Petition dismissed.