SANJAY BANSAL Vs. VIPUL LTD. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, we propose to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability of the present consumer complaint. The whole controversy revolves around the question "whether the complainant is the consumer as envisaged by the definition under Section (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986"? Sanjay Bansal has filed this complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties - builders in respect of four flats booked by him in the proposed project of the opposite parties known as "Orchid Petals" located in Sector 49, Gurgaon, Haryana. The prayer clause in the complaint is reproduced thus:

(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 in its response to the complaint besides denying the allegations of the complainant on merits have raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that the complainant is not covered by the definition of the "Consumer" as envisaged in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for opposite party No. 2 has taken us through the complaint filed by the complainant - Sanjay Bansal and submitted that admittedly the complainant had booked four flats in the project of the opposite party being flat Nos. 1103, 1203 and 903 in tower No. 15 as also flat No. 1402 in tower No. 21 in the Orchid Petals Condominium Complex 1 Sector 49, Gurgaon, Haryana. Learned Counsel argued that the fact that the complainant has booked four flats in the project on the same day is a clear indication that the flats were not booked for residence and the real purpose behind booking of the flats was to make commercial gains by later on selling the flats on premium. Learned Counsel argued that since the flats were booked for making profit on re -sale, obviously the services of the opposite parties were hired/availed in relation to the commercial purpose. As such complainant cannot maintain the consumer complaint under the Act. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 in support of his contention has referred to the judgments of Co -ordinate Benches of this Commission in the matters of M/s. Saavi Gupta and Others v. M/s. Omaxe Azorim Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., IV : (2012) CPJ 327(NC),in compliant No. 208/2012 decided on 1.10.2012 and judgment of the National Commission in the matter of Jag Mohan Chhabra and Anr. v. DLF Universal Ltd., IV : (2007) CPJ 199 (NC).