The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the distinction between purchasing properties for personal use and commercial purposes.

ORDER

Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member -The principal controversy revolves around the question, "Whether, the complainant, Sh. Sunil Gupta, is a consumer , in this case ". This judgment shall decide two complaints which are mentioned above. Both the complaints filed by the same complainant are against the same opposite party. They entail the same questions of law. Therefore, those will be decided by a common judgment.

2. This is an admitted fact that Sh. Sunil Gupta booked two Villas, one, M-26, Opulence Villa, Mayfield Garden, Gurgaon, measuring 826.81 sq.yds. with superstructure (consisting of Ground, First and part Second Floor measuring 6,500 sq.ft. as the built-up area with front and rear courtyard) and the other, M-1, Opulence Villa, Mayfield Garden, Gurgaon, measuring 1029.75 sy.yds. (861 sq.mts.) with superstructure (consisting of Ground, First and part Second Floor measuring 6,500 sq.ft. as the built-up area with front and rear courtyard). The moot question is, Whether, a consumer can book two different Villas, while this is an admitted fact that Sh. Sunil Gupta and his family resides in a third house, bearing No. N-155, Panchshila Park, New Delhi 110 017 ". Counsel for the complainant submits that this house belongs to the complainant's father and the complainant has no house in his name.

3. We have perused the pleadings. He has explained how he is a consumer , in paras 48 and 51 of both the complaints, respectively. The said para, which is same in both the cases, runs as follows:

"Complainant is a consumer. He has bought the property for his personal use. The actions of the THIPL are mischievous and not understand-able. They amount to deficiency in service . In these circumstances, it is necessary that this Hon'ble Commission is approached and appropriate orders are granted."

4. The namby pamby pleas set up by the complainant are vague, evasive and lead the Commission nowhere. In both the cases, he has stressed that he has bought the property for his personal use. The learned Counsel for the complainant also pointed out that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, vide Section 2(1)(d), does not make any distinction between one or a number of flats. It is the sweet choice of the consumer to purchase as many residential Villas, as he wants. He has also invited our attention to Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and according to him, there lies no rub in getting the two independent houses, besides, the third house, his father is holding. He has also invited our attention towards the judgment of this Commission, titled as M/s. Controls & Switchgear Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., IV (2007) CPJ 1 (NC), in Original Petition No. 9 of 2006, decided on 17.9.2007, wherein two luxurious brand of cars, namely, Mercedez-Benz, were purchased by the same consumer. It was held that the said two Mercedez-Benz cars were not purchased for commercial purposes.

5. We are unable to clap any importance with these arguments. Purchase of motor car and purchase of two flats are entirely different. Those cannot be equated.

6. Counsel for the complainant states that the complainant has purchased one house for his son and the other for his daughter.

7. The learned Counsel, instead of touching the heart of the problem, just skirted it. He could not invite our attention towards pleadings. All these facts are conspicuously missing. Who are the family members, are they minor or major, married or unmarried, why there is need of second and third house, etc., have not been explained.

8. This Commission, in case titled, Chilkuri Adarsh v. ESS ESS VEE Constructions, III (2012) CPJ 315 (NC), has held, as under:

"Arguments of the learned Counsel have been considered. 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 construct ion of two showrooms, which obviously relat commercial purpose and the complainant, therefore, will not come withi