Purchase designation as 'consumer' hinges on intent of use; ownership for profit does not automatically exclude consumer protection.

1. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that in February, 2013 the complainant booked a commercial space in the Opposite Party's project "OCUS 24K" located at Sohna Road, Sector 68, Gurgaon, Haryana. The Complainant paid a registration amount of Rs.4,00,000 vide cheque bearing No. 209331 to the Opposite Party.

2. Vide letter dated 28.5.2013, the Opposite Party provisionally allotted Unit No. UG - 186 admeasuring 361 sq.ft. on the upper ground floor of the Opposite party's project.

3. Subsequently, on 27.6.2013, the complainant made further payment to the extent of Rs.7,17,542 vide cheque No. 084713 to the Opposite Party. The Complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.11,17,542 even before execution of the Builder Buyer Agreement.

4. Pursuant to this, the Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties on 24.12.2013 for the aforesaid commercial unit. The total sale consideration payable for the aforesaid unit was
agreed at Rs.42,94,095. The Complainants opted for Construction linked payment plan which has been produced below for ready reference:

5. The Opposite Party raised further demands from the complainant vide their demand letters dated 14.4.2014, 12.6.2014, 12.8.2014 and 25.3.2015.

6. However, the complainant later came to know that the Opposite Party had not taken the necessary sanctions / approvals from the competent authority for construction of the aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same the complainant filed a complaint dated 6.2.2015 with the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Haryana and marked a copy to the Directorate of Town and Country planning , Haryana (hereinafter referred to as DTCP). The DTCP, vide its letter dated 30.3.2015, confirmed that the licence had not been provided to the Opposite party. The relevant portion of the reply of the DTCP has been produced below for ready reference:
"The above mentioned complaint has been examined, wherein keeping in view the fact that the subject cited licence has not been issued in name of 'Ocus Skyscrapers Reality Ltd' though the colony is being developed by said company, it has been desired to know that whether the transactions done with said developer for commercial units in subject cited licence shall be safe or not. In case, the agreement done between licencee (i.e. Perfect Constech Ltd.) and the developer (Ocus Skyscrapers Reality Ltd) is illegal then request has been made to take appropriate legal action.
In view of above, it is to inform that as per record, the licence No. 76 of 2012 dated 1.8.2012 has been granted to Perfect Constech Ltd. for development of commercial complex and no approval has been taken from the Department for development of the same by Ocus Skyscrapers Reality Ltd. Accordingly, on the basis of the documents received from you on 10.2.2015, the matter is being got examined before taking necessary action as per Act / Rules."

7. The Complainants then got served a legal notice dated 6.5.2015 upon the Opposite party and sought refund of the monies paid to the Opposite party.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Complainant approached the District Forum, pursuant to which, the Opposite Party canceled the allotment of the complainant vide letter dated 18.1.2017.

9. The complaint was thereafter returned from the District Forum on the ground that it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The complainant then approached this commission alleging deficiency of services on part of the Opposite Party.

10. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and has raised certain preliminary objections as to the Maintainability of the complaint case. The Opposite Party has contended (a) t