construction of commercial shops= the complaint as presented cannot be maintained before a consumer fora like ours as the agreement was for the construction of two showrooms, which obviously relate to commercial purpose and the complainant, therefore, will not come within the definition of a ‘consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This has been the consistent view of this Commission. It has held that even when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounts to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose. This Commission in the case of Jag Mohan Chhabra & Anr. V. DLF Universal Ltd. [IV (2007) CPJ 199 (NC)] in a somewhat similar case had held that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It had, therefore, disposed of the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach Civil Court. The said order has since been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No.6030-5031 of 2008 filed before the Supreme Court stands dismissed vide the Apex Court’s order dated 29.09.2008. In the facts of the present case, we maintain the same view and while dismissing the complaint as not maintainable reserve the right of the complainant to approach the appropriate Civil Court to seek his remedy, if so advised. He may take advantage of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)] to seek exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this complaint before this Commission.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 111 OF 2012

Chilukuri Adarsh

S/o Sri Ch. Satyanarayana Murthy

D-1, Brundavan Towers

Balaji Nagar

Vishakhapatnam – 530 003

Andhra Pradesh                                                …      Complainant

Versus

M/s Ess Ess Vee Constructions

Rep. by its Managing Partner

Sri Lagadapati Kiran Kumar

S/o Sri Dasaradha Ramayya

10-1-38/B, IVth Floor

Vinayagar Paradise, Waltair Uplands

Vishakhapatnam-530003

Andhra Pradesh                                                 …      Opposite Parties

BEFORE :

          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

          HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Complainant             :         Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocate

Pronounced on : 2^nd July, 2012

                                                  O R D E R

PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

1.      Shri A. Subba Rao, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has been heard.

2.      The complainant entered into a construction agreement with M/s Ess Ess Vee Construction, the opposite party, for getting two showrooms constructed at a consideration of Rs.37,02,000/- purportedly to be handed over within 18 months from the date of the agreement.  It is alleged that as against the said amount of Rs.37,02,000/-, he had made a total payment of Rs.45,50,000/-, thereby the opposite party had received an excess amount of Rs.7,98,000/-.  Even then they failed to deliver the possession of the said showrooms within the agreed period and further that they refused to refund the excess amount received from the complainant.  It has further been contended that even after the construction was complete, the premises were not handed over to the complainant and on the contrary leased out to a third party as a counterblast to the demand of the complainant for the refund of the excess amount paid by him.  It has further been contended that the opposite party was behind the third party/tenant filing a civil suit seeking injunction against the petitioner without any basis, which, of course, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge.  It is, however, admitted that finally the premises were handed over to the complainant on the 26^th of January, 2011 after a delay of more than 40 months.  Learned counsel contends that non-refund of the excess amount and the inordinate delay in handing over possession of the showrooms amounts to gross deficiency in service, which has resulted in huge financial loss, mental agony etc. and, therefore, it is a fit case for being admitted.

3.      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 construction of two showrooms, which obviously relate to commercial purpose and the complainant, therefore, will not come within the definition of a ‘consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  This has been the consistent view of this Commission.  It has held that even when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounts to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose.  This Commission in the case of Jag Mohan Chhabra & Anr. V. DLF Universal Ltd. [IV (2007) CPJ 199 (NC)] in a somewhat similar case had held that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It had, therefore, disposed of the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach Civil Court.  The said order has since been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No.6030-5031 of 2008 filed before the Supreme Court stands dismissed vide the Apex Court’s order dated 29.09.2008.  In the facts of the present case, we maintain the same view and while dismissing the complaint as not maintainable reserve the right of the complainant to approach the appropriate Civil Court to seek his remedy, if so advised.  He may take advantage of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)] to seek exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this complaint before this Commission.

4.      The complaint, accordingly, is dismissed in limine.

Sd/-

     (JUSTICE R.C. JAIN)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

     (S.K. NAIK)

MEMBER

Mukesh