advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Consumer Act - purchase of building for commercial use does not come under consumer Act -“Whether, M/s. Nav Bharat Press (Raipur), is a ‘consumer’, in accordance with Section 2(1)(d)(i)?”.= how can a Partnership Firm, which is transacting the business of printing and publication of Newspapers, can be said to be a ‘Consumer’?” It is clear that the employees, representatives, correspondents, etc., would transact the commercial activity. - A bare perusal of this case, clearly goes to show that the Guest House is meant for ‘commercial purpose’. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the said premises will be used by a person, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment. - The complainant is not a ‘consumer’. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint, but it can approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievances, as per lawWe, therefore, impose punitive costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, which be paid in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, towards Uttarakhand Tragedy, within 60 days, otherwise, it would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, till realization. .

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130807110012955CC19313.htm
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.  193 OF  2013


M/s Nav Bharat Press (Raipur)                                           
20/21, Bharat Chambers, Pragati Layout
Rajeev Nagar, Wardha Road
Somalwada, Nagpur
Through its Partner, Sh.Sameer                                  ..... Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sahara Prime City Ltd.
Zonal Office, 2nd Floor
Godrej Millennium Building
9th Koregaon Park Road
Near Taj Blue Diamond Hotel
Pune – 4110 001
Through its Authorised Officer

2. Sahara City Homes Marketing & Sales Corporation
Sahara India Bhavan
1, Kapoorthala Complex
Lucknow Through its Authorised Signatory

3. Sahara City Homes
Village Gavasi Manapur
15 KM Milestone, Wardha Road
Nagpur
Through its Authorised Officer                                         ….Opp.Parties

    
BEFORE:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
      HON’BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
       

For the Complainant   : Mr. U.M. Aurangabadkar, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON_1st AUGUST, 2013

 

 

ORDER

JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      The key question  in this case is, 
“Whether, M/s. Nav Bharat Press
(Raipur), is a ‘consumer’,  in accordance with Section 2(1)(d)(i)?”.
2.      The case of  M/s. Nav Bharat  Press, the complainant,  is  that it is a registered  partnership  firm,  under  the provisions of Indian Partnership Act,  and mainly deals in publication of Newspapers, with its Publishing Centres  at  Raipur, Bilaspur, Raigarh, Durg, Bhubaneswar, in the States of Chhattisgarh and Odisha.  The complainant  has its publishing Centres  in  the States of  Chhattisgarh and  Odisha.  It has its Corporate Office at Nagpur and various of its staff members, representatives, correspondents  and  other people are required to attend the Nagpur Office, on regular basis.

3.     The complainant  came through  a widely  circulated advertisement from M/s. Sahara India Commercial  Corporation Ltd, the opposite party, which advertised  construction of Sahara City, near Nagpur on NH-7. The advertisement also described the Scheme of Sahara City, M/s.Sahara India  Commercial Corporation Ltd., as to what  kind of facilities and amenities they were to provide.

4.      The complainant booked an independent Bungalow bearing No.V5/391, which according to the initial communication   at Unit area of 380.73 sq.mts, plot area of 473.70 sq.mts and  terrace area of 293.23 sq.mts at Sahara  City Homes, Nagpur.     Major portion of the payment was made,  but  the  opposite party did not construct the house, within the prescribed period,  so the present  complaint case was filed before

this Commission, on 24.06.2013, with the following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to :-
i) Hold that, the opponents are guilty of unfair trade practice and have committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
ii) Issue appropriate direction to the opponents to complete the entire work of the Scheme, i.e., the infrastructural development as mentioned in Para ___ above and Bungalow booked by the complainant within a stipulated time OR refund an amount of Rs.1,56,96,032/- (Rupees One Crore fifty six lakhs ninety-six thousand thirty-two only) by the complainant with the opponent with interest @18% from the date of last payment, i.e., 29.09.2010 to the complainant.
iii) saddle  the costs of this proceeding against the opponents
iv) Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Authority deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

5.      We have heard the counsel for the complainant.  He argued that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ and it is constructing a Guest House for the people mentioned above.  He contended that this Guest House is not being constructed for ‘commercial purpose’. 
6.      Instead of touching the heart of the problem, the learned counsel for  the  complainant  has  just  skirted it.  It is difficult to fathom as to how can a Partnership Firm,  which is transacting the business of printing and publication of Newspapers, can be said to be a ‘Consumer’?” 
It is clear that the employees, representatives, correspondents, etc., would transact the commercial activity.  
A bare perusal of  this case, clearly goes to show that the Guest House is meant for  ‘commercial  purpose’.  By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that  the  said  premises will  be used by a person, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment. 

7.      In a case decided by a Bench consisting of Justice J.M.Malik and Mr.Vinay Kumar, Member, titled, M/s. Purusharath Builders Pvt.Ltd., Vs. M/s. Uppal Housing Ltd. & Anr, Complaint Case No.112 of 2012, decided on 05.07.2012, held as under :-

          “11. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that these flats will be used for the officers of the Company.  Learned counsel for the complainant could not deny that those officers would  transact the commercial activity.  A bare-look on this Resolution, clearly goes to show that these flats would be meant for ‘commercial purposes’.

8.      A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the complainant in the above referred case and the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s.Purusharath Associates  Pvt. Vs. M/s. Uppal Housing Ltd., Plaza & Anr., (Civil Appeal Nos. 8990-8991 of 2012), decided on 07.01.2013, dismissed the Civil Appeals. 

9.      The complainant is not a ‘consumer’.  Therefore, we dismiss the complaint,  but  it can  approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievances, as per law.  Filing of this complaint is sheer wastage of the precious time of this Commission.  We, therefore, impose punitive costs in  the sum of Rs.10,000/-, which be paid in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, towards Uttarakhand Tragedy, within 60 days, otherwise, it would  carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, till realization.  Learned Registrar to see the compliance of this order and report.


..…………………..………J
     (J.M. MALIK)
      PRESIDING MEMBER  



                                                
 .……………….……………
                                                        (DR.S.M. KANTIKAR)
                                                                            MEMBER



dd/20


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.