SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Kiran Joshi —Appellant
versus
S.M.V. Agencies Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No.871 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 03/06/2016 in Complaint No. 187/2014 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 23.10.2018

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anish Verma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
When there are merits in the matter, the matter is liable to be remanded back for fresh disposal.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – First Appeal – Section – 19 - The appellant/complainant booked flat No : N-602 on the 6th floor of Sunrise Greens, Zirakpur District Mohali - The complaint was filed before the State Commission for possession and for cancelling the demand of interest of Rs.6,60,203/- raised by the opposite party – O.P resisted the complaint on various grounds – State Commission on hearing, has dismissed the complaint – Hence, the present complaint – Heard the counsels, perused the documents – It is held that there is merit in the appeal and the same is allowed - The order dated 3.6.2016 of the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission for deciding the complaint on merits in a time bound manner preferably within a period of six months - Parties to appear before the State Commission on 29.11. 2018.

       Result: Appeal is allowed remanding the matter to State Commission.

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant Kiran Joshi against the order dated 3.6.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Consumer Complaint No.187 of 2014, wherein the consumer complaint filed by the appellant/complainant has been dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant booked flat No.N-602 on the 6th floor of Sunrise Greens, Zirakpur District Mohali. The complaint was filed before the State Commission for possession and for cancelling the demand of Rs.6,60,203/- on account of interest raised by the opposite party. The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant had earlier filed another complaint No.141 of 2013 for flat No.H-501 in the same project, which was decided by order dated 8.8.2014. It was claimed that second flat was booked for her son, who was suffering from schizophrenia. The State Commission, however, did not agree with the contention of the complainant and dismissed the complaint as the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ holding that the flat in question has been purchased for commercial purpose.

3. Hence the present appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant has taken two flats. One flat is for the complainant, whereas other flat is for her son, who is suffering from schizophrenia. The State Commission has wrongly observed that the patient of this disease has to live with somebody and therefore, State Commission has found no justification for the second flat to be purchased for the son of the complainant. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant referred to following judgment:

Shri Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd., CC 427 of 2014, decided on 08.01.2015 (NC). It has been held that:-

15. It was contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that some of the complainants plan to shift to the flats booked by them only after their retirement, meaning thereby that right now they do not need a flat for their personal residence and they will let out the flat on taking possession from the opposite party. The contention is that that purchase of the flat by such persons would be for a commercial purpose and, therefore, they are not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The expression commercial purpose used in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act came up for consideration of this Commission in Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estates Ltd., CC 137 of 2010 decided on 12-02-2015 and the following view was taken:

“The expression ‘commercial purpose’ has not been defined in the Act and therefore, as held herein below by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, we have to go by the dictionary meanings,

“In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining to commerce” (Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means “connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile, having profit as the main aim” (Collins English Dictionary) whereas the word ‘commerce’ means “financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise on a large scale” (Concise Oxford Dictionary)”.

6. Going by the Dictionary meaning of the expression ‘Commerce’ as far as hiring or availing services are concerned, a person can be said to have hired or availed services only if they are connected or related to the business or commerce in which he is engaged. In other words, the services in order to exclude the hirer from the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act should be availed for the purpose of promoting, advancing or augmenting an activity, the primary aim of which is to earn profit with use of the said services. It would ord


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top