AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-COMPLAINT has been filed inter alia alleging Gulmohar Estates Limited, opposite party No. 6 who was incorporated under the Companies Act with one of its objects as construction and development of properties, was granted licence on 24. 6. 1985 under Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 for setting up group-housing colony in District Gurgaon. In the year 1991, the complainant purchased five dwelling units including unit Nos. EG-1/41 and EG-1/30 from O. P. No. 6 and payment of sale consideration of all the dwelling units was made through cheques. By the letter dated 24. 4. 1991, the opposite party No. 6 confirmed the allotment of two dwelling unit Nos. EG-1/41 and EG-1/30. It is further alleged that due to certain disputes between opposite party No. 1, on one hand, and opposite party Nos. 1 to 4, on the other hand, neither the possession of said two dwelling units was delivered to the complainant nor sale deeds thereof were executed. In the year 1994-95, licence granted to opposite party No. 6 was cancelled. CWP No. 2890 of 1995 filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the cancellation of licence was dismissed vide order dated 5. 12. 1996 by the High Court. Pursuant to public notice issued in November 1998 the complainant informed opposite party No. 3 that two said dwelling units had been purchased against the payment by it. Complainant also furnished all the relevant douments to opposite party No. 3. Cost of two dwelling units on the date of purchase was Rs. 46,65,000. It is stated that complainant is a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ). Direction is sought to be made to the opposite parties to deliver possession of the said two dwelling units and to execute the sale deeds thereof in favour of the complainant; pay amount of Rs. 72,000 from 1992 upto the date of filing of complaint towards loss on ground of complainant having been deprived of the use of two units @ Rs. 40,000 p. m. ; pay interest @ 18% p. a. on Rs. 46,65,000 and Rs. 20,00,000 towards mental agony, to the complainant.
WE have heard Mr. Mohit Choudhary for the complainant on admission. Word ''consumer'' has been defined under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act as under : (d) "consumer" means any person who- (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) "[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 [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 but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. 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 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. "
Words occurring towards the end in above Sub-clause (ii) ''but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose'' were added and the explanation substituted by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 w. e. f. 15. 3. 2003. Bare reading of the explanation would show that services which are availed of for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment only are not to be treated for commercial purpose. Alleged service for providing two dwelling units at a cost of Rs. 46,65,000 by opposite party No. 6, obviously, is not for earning livelihood by means of self-employment by the complainant-company and the transaction is relatable to service for commercial purpose which has been excluded from the purview of the definition as given in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) w. e. f. 15. 3. 2003. Thus, complainant not being a ''consumer'' the complaint itself is not maintainable under the Act. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed as such. Complaint dismissed.