- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Indrajit Dutta v. Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents, the owners and developers of two flats purchased by the appellant for personal residence, alleging deficiency in service due to non-completion of the flats and non-delivery of possession by the agreed date of 07.02.2010. The appellant claimed compensation before the State Commission. The respondents contended that the flats were purchased for commercial purposes, thus the appellant did not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and also raised objections regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction and pendency of a civil suit challenging the sale. The State Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable on the ground that the appellant was not a consumer, prompting the present appeal against the order dated 16.10.2014.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant, having purchased two flats, qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act for the purpose of filing a complaint against the developers.
- Whether the complaint filed by the appellant alleging deficiency in service is maintainable before the State Commission.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The two flats were purchased for personal residential use, not for commercial purposes.
- The State Commission erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the appellant does not fall within the purview of a consumer.
- The appeal should be allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the complaint remanded for disposal on merits.
Respondents' Arguments
- The purchase of two flats amounts to commercial purpose, excluding the appellant from the definition of consumer.
- The complaint is not maintainable before the State Commission.
- Reliance on precedents was placed to support the proposition that booking more than one residential unit constitutes commercial activity.
- The impugned order is in accordance with law and the appeal should be dismissed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chilkuri Adarsh v. Ess Ess Vee Constructions [III (2012) CPJ 315] | Booking more than one residential unit amounts to commercial purpose, excluding consumer status. | The court relied on this precedent to hold that purchasing two flats indicates commercial intent, thus the appellant is not a consumer. |
| Jagmohan Chabra and Anr. v. DLF Universal Ltd. [IV (2007) CPJ 199] | Purchasing two flats on two floors excludes complainant from consumer definition. | Applied to support the view that the appellant does not qualify as a consumer due to multiple unit purchase. |
| Sunil Gupta vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Consumer Complaint Nos. 5/2014 and 6/2014) | A consumer cannot book two different villas and still claim consumer protection. | Used to reinforce the principle that multiple property bookings are commercial transactions, not consumer transactions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the parties admitted the purchase of two flats by the appellant. While the appellant claimed the flats were for personal residence, the respondents asserted the purchase was for commercial purposes. The court examined precedents where booking multiple residential units was held to constitute a commercial transaction, thereby excluding the purchaser from consumer protection. Applying these principles, the court concluded that purchasing two flats cannot be regarded as a purely residential purpose but rather as an investment or commercial activity. Consequently, the appellant does not fall within the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The court found no error in the State Commission's dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable and upheld the order.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant's complaint before the State Commission is not maintainable as the appellant does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act due to the purchase of multiple flats. No new precedent was established; the ruling reiterates existing jurisprudence on the consumer status of purchasers of multiple residential units.
This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 16.10.2014 passed by learned State Commission in complaint number 20/2012 Shri Indrajit Dutta versus Samridhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by which complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant appellant purchased two flats for his personal residence use from opposite party / respondents who were owners and developers for a sum of 30,25,000/-. Even after expiry of 7 years from receipt of sanctioned plan, finished work of flats has not been completed and possession has not been given which was to be given by 07.02.2010. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before the State Commission claiming huge compensation. Opposite party filed application and submitted that complaints were not maintainable as purchase of two flats by complainant amounts to commercial purpose and complainant does not fall within the purview of the consumer. Objection regard pecuniary jurisdiction was also raised and it was further submitted that sale is also under challenge before Civil Court and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint as not maintainable as complainant does not fall within the purview of the consumer, against which this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as both flats were purchased by complainant for his residence, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint on the ground that complainant does not fall within the purview of the consumer, hence appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to dispose complaint on merits. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law hence appeal be dismissed.
5. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased two flats from OP. In the complaint, it has been mentioned that flats were purchased for his personal residence but opposite party in the application submitted that flats were purchased for commercial purpose and complainant is not a consumer.
6. Learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in in which it was held that [III (2012) CPJ 315] Chilkuri Adarsh v. Ess Ess Vee Constructions when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounts to booking of such premises for commercial purposes. This Commission in [IV (2007) CPJ 199] Jagmohan also observed that when complainant has booked two Chabra and Anr. v. DLF Universal Ltd. flats on 2 floors he does not fall within the purview of the consumer. This Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 5 / 2014 and 6 / 2014, Sunil Gupta vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure observed that consumer cannot book two different villas. In the light of the aforesaid (Pvt.) Ltd. judgments it becomes clear that as complainant has purchased two flats, it cannot be said to be for his residential purpose but amounts to be investment for commercial purpose and complainant does not fall within purview of the consumer. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing application and dismissing complaint as not maintainable.
7. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. ......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER
Alert