Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Emaar MGF Land Limited and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Indu Soni and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal Nos.209, 210 and 213 of 2012
Decided on 5.10.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. G.C. Garg, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
When the orders of the State Commission are erroneous, the said order is liable to be dismissed in appeal.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 19 —First Appeal—The dispute in the connected matters relates to units / shops in —Central Plaza of Mohali Hills project of the appellants — Emaar MGF Land Ltd - The preliminary objection (inter alia) raised by the opposite party— Emaar MGF Land Ltd was that the complainants are not consumers and hence the complaints were not maintainable within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the Act 1986— The objection was heard by the State Commission and dismissed the preliminary objection of the O.P.—Hence, the present appeals were filed—Heard the counsels, perused the documents—Respondent /Complainant in F.A 211/2012 (C.C 54/2011) has agreed that he is not a consumer during hearing hence, the same is dismissed on that ground and heard the other three matters —After perusing the record and the documents it is held that the complainants are not consumers and the shops were intended to be purchased by a Limited Company and relations of the M.D of the company for commercial purpose— Hence, the orders passed by the State Commission are erroneous and the same are hereby dismissed.
Result: Appeals are dismissed.
We heard learned counsels for the appellants – opposite parties and respondents – complainants, and perused the material on record.
2. C.C. No. 52 of 2011 Indu Sodhi vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd.; C. C. No. 53 of 2011 Ravinder Kumar Sodhi vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd.; C.C. No. 54 of 2011 M/s. Saurabh Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd; and C.C. No. 62 of 2011 Malik Singh Kohli and Neha Sodhi Gaur vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. were accepted with costs by the State Commission vide its Order dated 11.01.2012.
3. The dispute relates to units / shops in ‘Central Plaza’ of ‘Mohali Hills’ project of the appellants – Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
4. In the complaint cases one preliminary objection (inter alia) raised by the opposite party – Emaar MGF Land Ltd. was that the complaints were not maintainable within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the Act 1986 and deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone (para 4 under preliminary objections of its reply before the State Commission).
5. The State Commission in its Order of 11.01.2012 dismissed this preliminary objection as below:
“9. In the written replies, filed by the opposite parties, it was pleaded that the complaint were not the consumers, as the property, being commercial in nature, was sought to be purchased for running commercial activities, to gain profits. It was further pleaded that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint. ………..”
13. An objection, was taken, in the written replies, filed by the opposite parties, that the complainants did not fall within the definition of ‘consumers’ as the applications were submitted by them, for the allotment of commercial spaces, for running the commercial activities therein, to gain profit, and, as such, the complaints were not maintainable. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether the complainants, in all the complaints, fall within the definition of consumers, or not. In all the complaints, it was, in clear-cut terms, averred by the complainants, that they applied for the allotment of units, with a view to earn their livelihood, by way of self-employment. In support of the averments, contained in the complaint, brief affidavits, by way of evidence, were also filed by the complainants. Under these circumstances, it could be said, that the said units / shops, were intended to be purchased by the complainants, not for running commercial activities, on a large scale, by employing a number of persons, but for earning livelihood by way of self employment. As per the explanation appended to clause (ii) of Section 2 (d) of the Act ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him, and services availed of by him exclusively, for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment. It is not the value of the goods that matters, but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., “uses them by himself”, “exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood” and “by means of self-employment” make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought, must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself, for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasis that a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it, himself, on hire, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck, who purchases it, for plying it as a public carrier, by himself, would be a consumer. A person, who purchases a lathe machine, or other machine, to operate it himself, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. In the above illustrations, if such a buyer, takes the assistance of one or two persons, to assist / help him, in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer. As against this, a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine, to be plied or operated exclusively by another person, would
