ROHIT CHAUDHARY Vs. VIPUL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interpretation of the word and expression "Commercial Purpose" defined under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) is the pivotal issue in this appeal.

(2.) The appellants intended to purchase a commercial space in the project called Vipul World Commercial situated at Gurugram, Haryana, promoted by the respondent. After having come to know that Mrs. Bindu Rawlley and Mr. Talwinder Singh intended to sell their shares in office unit No.306 on the third floor in the aforesaid commercial complex allotted to them by the respondent, appellants agreed to purchase the same and accordingly made payment of entire agreed amount to their vendors. Recognizing the said transfer, the names of the appellants came to be recorded by the respondent in substitution to the names of the vendors of appellants. The customer code allotted to the original allotees was continued in the name of the appellants. It was agreed between the appellants and their vendors that appellants would pay a sum of Rs.18,07,100.00 to the original allotees and the balance amount of Rs.34,27,050.00 to the respondent as and when demanded by the respondent. In furtherance of the same and on payment to the original allotees, the fact of such sale of shares was intimated to the respondent.

(3.) Subsequent to the aforesaid circumstance, respondent raised a demand on the appellants and accordingly the amount was paid which was outstanding as on the date of demand. The respondent issued the receipt and also allotment letter allotting commercial space in "Vipul Business Park" - 105 and thereafter re-allotted unit No.814 on 8th Floor for a sale consideration of Rs.51,51,415..00 This unilateral change was objected to by the appellants and in response to the same, the respondent threatened to forfeit the amount paid till date and also to cancel the allotment of the office space.