- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
C&C TOWERS LIMITED & ANR. v. RAMAN KUMAR
Factual and Procedural Background
The complainant/respondent booked a commercial office space from the appellants for the purpose of earning his livelihood through self-employment. An allotment letter dated 2 September 2010 was issued to the complainant for the office space at a consideration of Rs. 34,04,500/-. Possession was to be delivered within 30 months from the start of the lease period, after obtaining all necessary approvals and sanctions, subject to force majeure circumstances. The allotment letter stipulated that if possession was delayed beyond 30 months, the builder would pay interest at 6% per annum for the delay period. The appellants failed to deliver possession as per the agreement, prompting the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the State Commission Punjab.
The appellants resisted the complaint, admitting the allotment but contending that the complainant was not a consumer as the purchase was for speculative purposes. The State Commission, by order dated 20 March 2017, directed the appellants to deliver possession within three months or refund Rs. 11,97,532/- with 12% interest, in addition to awarding Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 21,000/- for litigation expenses. The appellants filed the present appeal against this order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complainant qualifies as a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act given the nature of his purchase and employment status.
- Whether the State Commission's directions regarding delivery of possession, refund with interest, and compensation are sustainable.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The complainant cannot be considered a consumer since he was already employed and the purchase of the commercial unit was for speculative purposes.
- Relied on the decision of this Commission in Ashok Thapar Vs. Supreme Indosaigon Associates & Anr., CC No.31 of 2008 dated 19.11.2015 to support the contention.
Respondent's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ashok Thapar Vs. Supreme Indosaigon Associates & Anr., CC No.31 of 2008 dated 19.11.2015 | Definition and scope of "consumer" under Consumer Protection Act | The court rejected the appellant's reliance on this precedent, finding the complainant met the definition of consumer as he intended to earn his livelihood by quitting his job and using the purchased office space. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the complainant's status in light of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, focusing on the complainant's stated intention to leave his employment and earn livelihood through the purchased office space. The court found the complainant to be a consumer since the purchase was for self-employment and livelihood, not speculative purposes. The court noted that the booking was made in 2010 and possession had not been delivered even after seven years. The appellants admitted their inability to deliver possession. The State Commission was found to have been lenient by not awarding compensation for delay in possession but only Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony, despite the contractual provision for interest at 6% per annum. The appellate court found no reason to interfere with the State Commission's order and dismissed the appeal.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the State Commission's order directing the appellants to deliver possession or refund the amount with interest, along with compensation and litigation expenses awarded to the complainant. No new precedent was established by this ruling.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1439 OF 2017
(Against the Order dated 20/03/2017 in Complaint No. 122/2016 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. C&C TOWERS LIMITED & ANR.
THROUGH ITS MANAGINGH DIRECTORS, ISBT CUM
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,OPPOSITE VERKA MILK
PLANT,PHASE VI,
MOHALI
PUNJAB
2. C.VS. SEHGAL GM COMMERCIAL,
C&C TOWERS LTD,ISSBT CUM COMMERCIAL
COMPLEX, OPPOSITE VERKA MILK PLANT,PHASE VI,
MOHALI
PUNJAB ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. RAMAN KUMAR
S/O RAM LAL, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.-371/A,
JASWANT NAGAR, GARHA ROAD,
JALANDHAR,
PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Satinder S. Randhawa, Advocate Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Dated : 04 Aug 2017
ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)
The complainant / respondent booked a commercial office space with the appellants for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. An allotment letter dated 2.9.2010 was issued to the complainant, allotting the complainant office space for a consideration of Rs.3404500/-. The possession was to be delivered within 30 months from the date of start of lease period, after obtaining all necessary approvals and sanctions, subject to force majeure circumstances. It was further stipulated in the allotment letter that in case a delay in handing over of possession from the date of the start of the lease period, the builder shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. to the complainant for the period of delay beyond 30 months. Since the appellant failed to honour its contractual obligation of delivering possession of the unit, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.
1
2. The complaint was resisted by the appellant which admitted the allotment made to the complainant but claimed that the complainant was not a consumer, he having purchased a commercial unit for speculative purposes.
3. The state Commission vide order dated 20.3.2017directed as under :-
" (i) Deliver the possession of Unit No.3, Block/Tower C&C Capital, Floor 10th, Super Area 619 sq. ft., complete in all respect after getting the completion certificate from the competent authority to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed by this Commission;
In case the possession is not delivered within the period referred in Clause No.(i) then OPs are directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,97,532/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the payment till the date of refund; and
1.
(iii) Pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment;
(iv) Pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses."
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant who is already working in a company as stated by him in the amended complaint, cannot be said to be consumer. He relies upon the decision of this Commission in Ashok Thapar Vs. Supreme Indosaigon Associates & Anr. in CC No.31 of 2008 dated 19.11.2015. I, however, find no merit in the contention. The complainant had clearly stated in para 3 of the amended complaint that though he was working as employee of M/s Richi Travels, Jalandhar he had planned to earn his livelihood after leaving the job and therefore was searching shop/office space in order to earn his livelihood by leaving the job and starting work in the said shop/office space. From the aforesaid statement contained in the complaint, it is evident that the complainant had booked the office space in the project of the appellant for the purpose of earning his livelihood by quitting the job with Richi Travels, Jalandhar once he got possession of the said shop/office space from the appellant and earn his livelihood by working in the said shop/office space in his own right. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
5. As far as merits of the case are concerned, the booking was made by the complainant way back on 2.9.2010 and almost 7 years have since expired. The learned counsel for the appellant states that they not in a position to offer possession of the unit booked by the complainant. The State Commission has been rather lenient with the appellant by not awarding any compensation for the delay in offering delivery of the possession though it has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him. This is despite the fact that even under contractual obligation, the appellant was required to pay interest @ 6% p.a. to the complainant. The order passed by the State Commission therefore does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J
2
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
3
Alert