KARAN SINGH JANGU vs ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ANR.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.

961 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 19/02/2018 in Appeal No.

88/2018 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1.

KARAN SINGH JANGU S/O.

SHRIRAM KALLA, R/O.

HOUSE NO.

305, SECTOR 9, GURGAON-122001 HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1.

ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.

LTD. & ANR.

THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, 1202-04, ANTRIKSH BHAWAN-22, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI 2.

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.

LTD.

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER/CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE 4TH FLOOR, MAUANK TRADE CENTER, STATION ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO.

962 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 19/02/2018 in Appeal No.

89/2018 of the State Commission Rajasthan) WITH IA/6179/2018(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1.

963 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 19/02/2018 in Appeal No.

90/2018 of the State Commission Rajasthan) WITH IA/6180/2018(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1.

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER/CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE 4TH FLOOR, MAUANK TRADE CENTER, STATION ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ........... ..........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO.

964 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 19/02/2018 in Appeal No.

91/2018 of the State Commission Rajasthan) WITH IA/6181/2018(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1.

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER/CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE 4TH FLOOR, MAUANK TRADE CENTER, STATION ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.

PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.

S.S.

Dahiya, Advocate For the Respondent : Dated : 31 Jul 2018 ORDER ORDER PER MR.

PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Karan Singh Jangu against the common order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal Nos.

88/2018 to 91/2018.

As the facts of each revision petition are same and question of law involved in the petitions is also same, therefore, these are being decided together.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner booked seven shops with the opposite party.

Later, one shop was transferred in the name of complainant’s son.

Out of the six shops, four complaints were filed before the District Forum and for two shops, two complaints were filed before the State Commission, when the possession was not handed over to the complainant by the opposite party.

These four revision petitions relate to four complaints filed before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jaipur, (in short “the District Forum”).

The District Forum vide its order dated 28.11.2017 passed in C.C.

No.

96/14, C.C.

320/14, C.C.

95/14 and C.C.

No. d C.C.

97/14 dismissed complaints filed by the petitioner/complainant on the ground that complainant was not a consumer as he has booked all these shops/commercial spaces in a project viz.

Ansal Sushant Plaza.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred appeals being nos.

88/18, 89/18, 90/18 and 91/18 before the State Commission and the same were dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the State Commission.

4.

Hence the present revision petitions.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had booked shops for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment as the petitioner is a retired government servant and wanted to earn his livelihood through these shops.

Learned counsel argued that the State Commission has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum on the ground that more than one shops were booked by the petitioner/complainant, hence, they would be deemed to have been booked for commercial purpose, and therefore, the complainant was not a consumer.

The State Commission has not relied on the judgment of this Commission in case No.

145/2010 – Kavita Ahuja Vs.

Shipra Estate & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt.

Ltd. and judgment of Chandigarh State Commission in case no.

09/2013 – Umesh Ahuja Vs.

M/s.

Emaar MGF Land Ltd., cited by the learned counsel for the complainant before the State Commission.

It was asserted by the learned counsel that the shops were not booked for any investment purpose rather they were only booked for carrying on the business for earning livelihood.

7.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record.

8.

The State Commission has given clear reasons for not accepting the judgment of this Commission cited by the learned counsel for the complainant before the State Commission viz. ssion viz.

Kavita Ahuja (supra) and Umesh Ahuja (supra).

In the first judgment the State Commission has clearly observed that this judgment relates to residential unit whereas second judgment relates to only one shop.

However, in the present case, the petitioner/complainant had booked seven shops out of which one has been transferred to his son.

Thus, the State Commission has rightly not relied upon these judgments.

9.

This Commission has been taking a consistent view that a person who books more than one unit, then such booking would be deemed to be for commercial purpose and the complainant was not considered to be a “consumer” within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

This Commission in the matter of Chilukuri Adarsh vs M/S Ess Ess Vee Constructions, C.C.

111/2012, decided on 02.07.2012 has taken the following view:- “3. xxx However, we are of the view that the complaint as presented cannot be maintained before a consumer fora like ours as the agreement was for the construction of two showrooms, which obviously relate to commercial purpose and the complainant, therefore, will not come within the definition of a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

This has been the consistent view of this Commission.

It has held that even when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounts to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose.

This Commission in the case of Jag Mohan Chhabra& Anr.

V.

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 Honble Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No.6030-5031 of 2008 filed before the Supreme Court stands dismissed vide the Apex Courts order dated 29.09.2008.

9.09.2008.

In the facts of the present case, we maintain the same view and while dismissing the complaint 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.

The complaint, accordingly, is dismissed in limine.” 10.

This Commission has reiterated this view in the following two judgements also:- “Sunil Gupta vs Today Homes & Infrastructure in C.C.

05 of 2014 decided on 03.02.2014.

Smt.

Madhu Saigal & Anr. vs M/S.

Omaxe Buildhome Pvt.

Ltd. in C.C.

270 of 2013 decided on 20.03.2014” 11.

Moreover, in the present case there are six shops that have been booked in the name of the petitioner and these shops have been booked in a commercial mall.

Clearly these are commercial spaces having been booked in a commercial complex.

Obviously, if the case of the petitioner is covered under Explanation clause attached to definition of the consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner would be deemed to be a consumer.

The Explanation is reproduced as under: “Explanation.— For the purposes 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; “ 12.

From the above Explanation it is clear that even if the goods or services have been purchased or availed for commercial purposes, but if they are purchased or availed for earning livelihood through self-employment, then these purchases or availments would not be out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Act, 1986.

It is admitted fact that the petitioner is a retired government servant, therefore, there can be no question of his earning livelihood by utilizing these shops because either he would have got pension or he would have got some other retirement dues and benefits which he would be utilizing for carrying on his livelihood.

Another aspect in the present case is that even if the petitioner wants to earn further money through self-employment, he would have purchased only one shop, however, he has booked six shops.

Clearly, this seems to be an investment plan of the petitioner which might have been executed with the only motive of earning profits.

Thus, conditions provided under “Explanation” are not satisfied in the present case.

Hence, the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner.

13.

From the above examination, it is brought out that the petitioner does not qualify to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only on the ground of having booked six shops, but also on the ground that as a retired government servant, his pleading for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment cannot even justify purchase of one shop/commercial space.

14.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 19.02.2018 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.

Accordingly, R.P.

961/18, 962/18, 963/18 and 964/18 are dismissed at the admission stage.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievances from the civil court if he is so advised. ......................

PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER