Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Mahesh Malik —Complainant
versus
Emaar MGF Land Limited and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.102 of 2015 and Consumer Case No.1075 of 2016
Decided on 9.2.2022
Consumer Case No.102 of 2015
For the Complainant:Mr. Dinkar Singh, Mr. Rohit Singh and Mr. Gagan Garg, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Aditya Narain, Mr. Mishra Raj Shekhar and Mr. Siddharth Dey, Advocates
Consumer Case No.1075 of 2016
For the Complainant:Mr. Dinkar Singh, Mr. Gagan Garg and Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Mr. Daksh Pandit, Mr. Tenzen Negi and Mr. Paras Chaudhary, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Commercial Activities – If a person, doing commercial activities purchases ‘goods’ or avails ‘service’ for his personal use, then he will be a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Real Estate – Complaint has been field alleging deficiency of service on part of OP for failure to handover possession of plot – Whether the Complainant is a Consumer – The complainant is doing business of purchasing and selling immovable properties on large scale – Thus, a person involved in commercial activities can also buy ‘goods’ or avail ‘service’ for his personal use. If a person, doing commercial activities purchases ‘goods’ or avails ‘service’ for his personal use, then he will be a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act – The complainant and his entire family is residing in Hyderabad, in their own house. The complainant has not disclosed any need and purpose for purchasing residential flats/villa/plot, in Delhi NCR – Therefore, The complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaints are not maintainable. [Paras 11 to 15].
Result: Complaints dismissed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocate, for the complainant in the complaints and Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate in CC/102/2015 and Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, in CC/1075 of 2016, for the opposite party.
2. Mahesh Malik has filed CC/102/2015 for directing Emaar MGF Land Limited (i) to handover possession of developed plot bearing No. “Coral-53” (area 500 Sq. yard, corner plot, one side 60 meter wide road and other side 24 meter wide road), in the project Emerald Hills, Villa Plots, Sector-65, Urbana Estate, Gurgaon as per specification of the agreement, within 45 days from the notice to the opposite party, on payment of balance consideration of Rs.1983290/-, (ii) to pay interest @24% per annum from 22.12.2012 till the date of actual delivery of possession, or (iii) to refund entire amount of Rs.39854210/- to the complainant, in case, the opposite party is not in position to hand over possession within 45 days and pay compensatory interest @24% per annum, on the aforesaid amount from the date of each deposit till actual payment, (iv) to pay compensation equivalent to 10% of the aforesaid amount, for resorting unfair trade practice and (v) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. This plot was booked on 10.12.2010.
3. The opposite party filed its written reply in the complaint on 08.04.2015 and contested the complaint. The opposite party filed IA/10981/2019, for leave to serve interrogatories upon the complainant and sought direction to the complainant to reply it. Along with IA/10981/2019, two interrogatories i.e. (i) What are the properties owned by the complainant either individually or jointly in India? To give specific details with the dates of its purchase. (ii) Had the complainant purchased or sold any property in last 10 years? To give specific details with the dates of its purchase and sale. This Commission, vide order dated 15.07.2019, directed the complainant to file an affidavit, disclosing therein all the properties owned or booked by him on or before the date on which the plot in question was booked and particulars of the properties disposed of by him.
4. In compliance of order dated 15.07.2019, the complainant filed his Affidavit on 30.01.2020 and Revised Affidavit on 01.09.2021, disclosing following properties, within last 10 years:-
(a) The complainant purchased Shop Nos.-3, 5 and 7, in Hi Line Complex, Park Lane, CTC, Banjara Hills Road No.12, Hyderabad, which were sold in the year 2008.
(b) The complainant purchased residential house No.3-6-363/A, near Liberty building, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad.
(c) The complainant and his wife purchased Plot no.51, Kamlapuri Colony, Krishna Nagar, Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad vide sale deed dated 20.08.2004.
(d) The complainant purchased agricultural land at village Chevella, Madeenaguda, Hyderabad, in the year 2006.
(e) The complainant purchased Shop No.G-20, in City Centre Complex, Banjara Hills Hyderabad, in 2006 and sold in 2010.
(f) The complainant booked Villa No. B-57, in the project Kingswood Oriental, Noida, promoted by Jaiprakash Associates Limited, in July, 2010, for which, CC/1075/2016 has been filed.
(g) The complainant booked seven apartments (numbers A/3702, B/704, C-1104, C-1504, C-2603, D/11/701, D/11/702 in Ireo Victory Valley, on 07.07.2010, for the members of his joint family i.e. (i) the parents, (ii) Mr. Prem Chander Malik (father’s brother), his wife, two sons and two daughters, (iii) his younger brother, his wife and two sons and (iv) his youngest brother, his wife, son and daughter. Out of which six units were cancelled in December, 2010. The company itself arranged a buyer namely Mr. Vivek Arora and Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, who purchased Apartment No. B/704.
(h) The complainant booked Floor No. C/1242, in Ansal Esencia Floor, Sector 67, Gurgaon, on 20.07.2010, which was later on cancelled.
5. In Reply to IA/2
