IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 12.09.17 Date of Decision: 18.09.17 Complaint No. 1385/2017 In the matter of: Shri Suresh Khurana S/o Sh. B.P.Khurana R/o E-19/326, Pocket-E-19 Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085 ..Complainant Versus M/s Aerens Europark Having its office at 1010-1011 Devika Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi-110019. Through its Managing Director/ Director /Chief Executive Officer AND ALSO AT Plot No. 39, Site IV Sahibabad Industrial Area District Ghaziabad, UP. ..Opposite Party C ORAM Honble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Honble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member 1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL) JUDGM NTE The case of the complainant is that on 26.08.09 MOU was executed between him and the OP in respect of booking of Unit No. 18, Hotel Zone, 2 Floor measuring 500 Sq. Ft. in projectnd situated at Plot No., 39, Site 4, NH-24, Link Road, Madan Malviya Nagar Marg, Sahibabad, UP. He paid Rs. 22,75,256/- leaving balance of Rs. 20,000/- which was to be paid at the time of possession. He transferred his right to use the said unit to the OP for development, construction and operation of the Hotel for a period of 15 years . In consideration of the same arrangement OP was to pay fixed monthly payment i.e. assured return of Rs. 25,000/- per month. OP has not paid assured return since May 2014. As per terms and conditions of MOU OP was liable to pay assured return increased by another 15% since August 2012. Again three years thereafter, assured return was to be increased by another 15%. Notice dated 05.11.16 was sent. Hence this complaint for directions to the OP to pay Rs. 8,51,056/- towards dues of fixed monthly payment i.e. assured return. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- towards suffering of mental pain, agony and financial turmoil, Rs. 1,00,000/- for litigation charges.
2. We have gone through the material on record and heard counsel for the complainant for purpose of admission. The complaint has been cleverly drafted. It does not disclose the purpose of booking. Even the MOU copy of which is at page 12 to 17 does not reflect the same. Any how super area being 500 sq. ft. only which is quite small for residence, it appeared that the same must be for commercial purpose. On query counsel for the complainant conceded that booking was commercial purpose.
3. The complaint does not contain even iota of allegation that same was booked for earning livelihood by self employment. Hence the complainant does not fall within the definition of section 2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.
4. Moreover the conduct of the party reveals that complainant booked the unit for assured return. The same has been held to be beyond the scope of Consumer Protection Act as per decision dated 06.04.17 passed by National Commission in CC No. 246/13 titled as Ms. Priti Arora vs, M/s A.R.N. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd.
5. For the foregoing reasons the complaint is dismissed in limini. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost. ( ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)