Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member— Briefly the facts are that the complainant purchased a commercial flat from Saraswati Builders bearing No. 27-GF on the ground floor of Saraswati House, Nehru Place measuring 1013.38 sq. feet. He paid an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/-. Further he paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as ordered by the High Court in Suit No. 546-1980 vide order dated 20.8.80. The complaint was made to the High Court under Section 448 of the IPC against the complainant. The complainant was required to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the defendant. Thus he paid a total consideration of Rs. 2,95,000/- for the commercial flat.

2. The property stands registered and mutated in the name of the complainant w.e.f. 20.8.80, the date of the order of the High Court referred to earlier. The assessment of property tax is also in the name of the complainant w.e.f. 20.8.80. The complainant has submitted that he wants to transfer his property to the name of Sh. Vinod Gupta & Ors. for which he approached the respondent, who have further demanded a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/-todo the needful. The complainant has agitated that the builders are refusing to make the transfer entry in their books and demanding further amount of Rs. 1,01,000/- for making the transfer entry in their books, which according to the complainant is_ resorting to unfair trade practice and exploitation of the consumers.

3. The complainant has alleged that he wrote letters to the respondent No. 1 on 20.4.88, 23.5.91 and 6.6.91 and again on 13.6.91 but they have not responded to his request. He has prayed that the respondent Sh. D.R. Gupta and Smt. Krishna Kumari of Saraswati Builders be directed to enable the complainant to get the property transferred without any further demand. He has also prayed for penal compensation of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. for his and his wife’s ill health due to this delay. In support of his contention the complainant has submitted an affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar to the effect that the respondents would charge Rs. 1,01,000/- as renumeration for transfer of the said commercial flat in the name of Vinod Gupta & Ors.

4. The complaint has been contested by the respondents who have contended that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He had purchased a commercial flat for commercial purposes on 20.8.80 and has rented the shop for the purpose of income and now he is selling the shop for the commercial gain. Further they have contended that the word goods and services have been defined in the Act and the complaint is neither in respect of goods nor in respect of service.

5. We have considered the arguments advanced and perused the record. The respondents in their reply to the complaint dated 15.10.91 have submitted that the complainant purchased a commercial flat for commercial purpose and rented the shop for purpose of income and is desirous of selling the shop for commercial gains. The complainant has affirmed this in reply to the interrogatories submitted by the respondents. At para 3 of the reply dated 26.2.92 he has stated that after taking possession of the shop, he gave it on rent at Rs. 5,500/- per month. The respondents have further submitted that the complainant wants to sell the shop for commercial gains. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act. This fact has also not been denied by the complainant. In fact, the complainant in his application dated 1.4.92, filed by him on 15.5.92 has submitted in para 5 of this application that due to unavoidable and unforseen circumstances he had to sell the shop. The respondents in support of their objection have put reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Original Petition No. 25 of 1989 Prestige Stopes v. Sharma Industries and first appeal No. 22 of 1989 Synco Textile Pvt. Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Limited decided on 6.4.90, I (1991) CPJ 499 (NC).

6.