AKBAR NANJIBHAI Vs. NISHAN DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Akbar Nanjibhai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of Nishan Developers (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent').

(2.) The facts of the case, according to the Petitioner (original complainant before the District Forum) are that he had purchased twin tenements under construction by the Respondent for a total price which was fixed at Rs. 8 lakh per tenement. Petitioner availed of home loan from ICICI Bank for payment towards the purchase of these tenements and he was issued allotment letter in respect of each tenement on 8th April, 2003 with the assurance that the Petitioner could shift into the accommodation by 30.6.2003 after completion of all legal formalities as well as after obtaining necessary Building Use (B.U.) permission and electricity connection. However, when he was not given possession of the tenements, as assured, Petitioner sent representations to the Respondent and later came to know that although the tenements have been completed, B.U. permission and electricity connection permissions were still pending. The construction material used in the building was also of inferior quality as was noted by the Petitioner and his wife during inspections. Subsequently, Petitioner was told that he would have to pay Rs. 25,000 for extra work and when the Petitioner sought specific information on this issue, he got no response. He was finally handed over the possession of the tenements on 31.12.2003. Aggrieved because of the delay in handing over the possession of tenements due to which Petitioner had to pay more interest to the bank on the loan and also because of the poor quality of construction and lack of sufficient facilities, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice seeking compensation of Rs. 4,01,722.

(3.) Respondent, on the other hand, has denied the contentions and stated that the Petitioner had made a false complaint because he was refusing to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,15,835 that was due from him. Further, Petitioner had taken over the possession of the tenements in the first week of October, 2003 and had also given an assurance to the Respondent that he would pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,15,835 for the extra work provided due on the tenements by the Respondent. Respondent further stated that the Petitioner had sold both the tenements through a registered sale deed dated 27.11.2006 for Rs. 9 lakh each and, therefore, if the construction had indeed been of a poor quality, Petitioner would not have been able to sell the two tenements for a price higher than what he had paid. Keeping in view these facts, it was submitted that the complaint had no merit and further the case because Petitioner had sold both the tenements for profit, thus, the transaction falls within the purview of commercial purpose and is outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.