J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The controversy in this case swirls around the question, “Whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?”

2. M/s. Advik Industries Ltd. (Formerly known as Du-Lite Safety Services Pvt. Ltd.), the complainant is a limited Company which transacts the business of investing its funds in Equity and Preference Shares, Stocks, Bonds, etc. The complainant applied for allotment of Second Floor of the commercial Space/Unit No. 216, Super Area 3493 sq.ft., in “Uppal’s Element 9” in the ‘Office Use’ category on 28.06.2006 to the OP, M/s. Uppal Housing Ltd (Formerly known as M/s. Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-. The complainant was assured that an Agreement would be executed, thereafter, a printed Agreement was signed on 01.06.2007. The complainant further paid the installments in the sum of Rs.1,13,15,440/-, the total consideration was to be paid in the sum of Rs.1,81,63,600/-. Thereafter, no physical possession of the disputed premises was handed over to the complainant. Ultimately, this complaint was filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on 22.07.2011.

3.