In this post we will discuss about Consumer Complaint against Citi Center Developers wherein it was held that the complainant had purchased three units, for commercial purposes to earn profits. Therefore, he does not fall under the definition of the consumer as defined in the Act However, while dismissing the complaint as not maintainable, reserved the right of the complainant to approach the Civil Court or appropriate authority other than a Consumer Forum to seek his remedy
This post is a summary of judgment wherein the complaint has been instituted by the complainant on the averment that he purchased three office spaces in the project named Chandigarh City Center for his personal use for opening his offices. The complainant has already paid the amount to date and OPs were supposed to pay 12% assured return till the date of actual possession of the units, but the OPs had stopped paying the assured return of agreed 12% by July 2019. The Court held that the complainant does not fall under the definition of the consumer as defined in the Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and, therefore, the merits of the complaint need not be touched. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
Judgment digest
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37 A, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No.826 of 2019
Date of Institution: 13.11.2019
Date of Decision: 18.11.2019
ALSO READ- EXECUTION CASE HARYANA RERA PANCHKULA AUTHORITY AGAINST OMAXE
Complainant:
Harmanpreet Singh S/o Gurpreet Singh, aged 32, R/o #42 Prem Nagar, Near Govt. School, Ambala City, Haryana
Opposites:
- M/s CITI Center Developers, a partnership firm registered under theIndian Partnership Act, 1932,having its principal place of business at VIP Road, Zirakpur, Punjab 140603, through its authorized signatory and partner, Mr. Vijay Jindal (Aadhar No.360887968977).
- M/s CITI Center Developers, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932,having its principal place of business at VIP Road, Zirakpur, Punjab 140603, through its authorized signatory and partner Mr. Pankaj Gupta (Aadhar No.638926347057).
ALSO READ- ASSURED RETURN CONSUMER RERA CASE CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
Quorum:
Sh. Rajinder Kumar Goyal
Facts and evidence presented by both parties.
The complaint has been instituted by the complainant on the averment that he purchased three office spaces No.704, 705, 706 at 7th Floor Block D and E at the said site in the project named as Chandigarh City Center for his personal use for opening his offices, vide agreements Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3. As per the advertisement Ex.C-4 of OPs, they have assured a 12% return on the CC 826 of 2019 office projects till the possession delivery to the customers. The complainant has already paid the amount to date and OPs were supposed to pay 12% assured return till the date of actual possession of the units, but the OPs had stopped paying the assured return of agreed 12% by July 2019. Complainant visited OPs for permanent assured of 12% which was stopped by OPs but to no effect. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint against OPs with the below prayers:- i) To continue paying 12% assured return to the complainant till delivery of actual physical possession of the said units: ii) To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.9% of the unit per month till the delivery of actual physical possession of the unit; iii) To pay compensation and damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, and iv) To pay the litigation cost to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.
ALSO READ- GILLCO DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS PVT LTD CONSUMER RERA CASE
The complainant has purchased three commercial units, vide agreements Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2, and Ex.C-3, at the same time in the same project. However, counsel for the complainant has failed to prove any cogent and convincing reason that why the complainant purchased the above said three commercial units at the same time in the same project. Hon’ble National Commission in case Anil Dutt v. M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd. (BPTP) 2013 (4) CPR 24 (NC) held that when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounts to booking the same for investment purposes. The complainant intends to resell the units and CC 826 of 2019 the same cannot be said to have been purchased for personal use. Similarly, in the present case also, the purchase of the unit, in question, by the complainant, given the purchase of the other four units, in the manner discussed above, is made for commercial purposes for earning profits and not self-use.
ALSO READ- MOTIA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT
Judgment:
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that the complainant is not said to be a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, since the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the plot in question was purchased by him for speculative purposes of making gain by selling the same at later date. The complaint is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. It is, however, CC 826 of 2019 made clear that the dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainant approaching a court or forum other than a consumer forum for the redressal of his grievances. Given the law laid down in the above-said authorities as well as because the complainant had purchased three units, for commercial purposes to earn profits. Therefore, he does not fall under the definition of the consumer as defined in the Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and, therefore, the merits of the complaint need not be touched. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. However, while dismissing the complaint as not maintainable, we reserve the right of the complainant to approach the Civil Court or appropriate authority other than a Consumer Forum to seek his remedy, if so advised.
ALSO READ- PRIMARY ESTATES & DEVELOPERS CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT
This post is written by Riya Singh
For case specific advice, one can contact best/top/expert consumer/Real estate lawyers advocate practicing in District Consumer Forum or State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Punjab Haryana Chandigarh.
For more info contact- 99888-17966.
This post covers topics related to consumer court judgements against builders 2020, consumer court decision against builde,r supreme court judgments on delayed possession 2020, supreme court judgments on delayed possession 2020, supreme court judgement on rera, supreme court judgements against builders, consumer court judgements against builders 2020, supreme court judgement in favour of builders.
