JIWAN KANT JAIN Vs. VATIKA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant herein has filed instant consumer complaint against M/s Vatika Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party pertaining to buyer -builder agreement executed by the opposite party developer with the complainant in respect to two apartments in the development project undertaken by the opposite party.

(2.) On perusal of the complaint, prima facie it appears that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we have heard the arguments on this aspect of the matter. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act defines the term "consumer" for the purpose of the Act. As the instant case has been filed on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Section 2 (1) (d)

(3.) On reading of the above, it is clear that the section while defining the term consumer vis -a -vis the service provider has carved out an exception by excluding a person who avails/hires of services of someone for commercial purpose from the definition consumer.