ADVIK INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UPPAL HOUSING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this case swirls around the question, "Whether the complainant is a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?"

(2.) M/s. Advik Industries Ltd. (Formerly known as Du-Lite Safety Services Pvt. Ltd.), the complainant is a limited Company which transacts the business of investing its funds in Equity and Preference Shares, Stocks, Bonds, etc. The complainant applied for allotment of Second Floor of the commercial Space/Unit No. 216, Super Area 3493 sq.ft., in "Uppal's Element 9" in the 'Office Use' category on 28.06.2006 to the OP, M/s. Uppal Housing Ltd (Formerly known as M/s. Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-. The complainant was assured that an Agreement would be executed, thereafter, a printed Agreement was signed on 01.06.2007. The complainant further paid the installments in the sum of Rs.1,13,15,440/-, the total consideration was to be paid in the sum of Rs.1,81,63,600/-. Thereafter, no physical possession of the disputed premises was handed over to the complainant. Ultimately, this complaint was filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on 22.07.2011.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant is a "consumer" in this case. He has cited few authorities in support of his case, which are reported in (1) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., & Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2009 AIR(SC) 1109, (2) judgments of this Commission in Delhi Cantonment Board Vs. S.K. Kapoor & Associates, in Revision Petition Nos. 2501 and 2669 of 2004, decided on 26.10.2006, (3) M/s. Techno Mukund Constructions Vs. Mercedes Benz India Ltd. & Anr., in OP No. 298 of 2000, decided on 20.01.2011 and (4) M/s. Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., in First Appeal NOs. 159, 160 & 161 OF 2004, decided on 03.12.2004.