RISHI MALHOTRA R/O. HOUSE NO. 3815 W, DUNBAR DRIVE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, U.S.A - 85041 Vs. M/S. BLUE COAST INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AND 5 OTHERS ANTRIKSH BHAVAN, 22, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rishi Malhotra an American citizen has filed the present complaint alleging that on 8.2.2013 opposite parties No. 2 & 3 entered into a tripartite agreement with the complainant to construct and transfer on lease holding basis one commercial space unit No.19-C & 22, Ground Floor, Sheraton Chandigarh Hotel, Chandigarh. As per the agreement the lease of the unit was to continue until Sept., 2077 and the consideration amount was Rs.94,80,000.00. Pursuant to the agreement the complainant paid the entire consideration amount vide two cheques worth Rs.18,96,000.00 and Rs.75,84,000.00 respectively dated 8.1.2013 and 5.2.2013. It is alleged that the possession of the property was to be handed over to the complainant within 12 months of the agreement i.e. on or before 8.2.2014. It is the case of the complainant that despite of the complainant having complied with his part of the agreement the opposite parties have failed to deliver possession of the subject unit to the complainant. It is also alleged that vide clause 41 of the tripartite agreement till the date of the first lease the complainant was to receive minimum monthly return of Rs.71,000.00 w.e.f. 1.2.2013 from opposite party No.1 company. Opposite party No.1 commenced making payment of the monthly return from 16.3.2013 onwards. However, after Nov., 2013 the payments have become less frequent compelling the complainant to continuously follow up the missed payments. The last payment of monthly assured return was made for the months of Feb., March & April, 2014 on 31.5.2014. Thereafter, the further payments of monthly assured return have been stopped. Claiming the failure of the opposite parties to deliver possession of the subject units within the agreed time frame and also failure on the part of the opposite parties to make timely payments to assure monthly return to be unfair trade practise and deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.

(2.) The opposite parties on being served with the notice of the complaint have taken objection as to the maintainability of the complaint. The plea of the opposite parties is that bare perusal of the tripartite agreement and the allegations in the complaint would show that the services of the opposite parties were allegedly hired/availed in respective of commercial premises. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act"). Consequently, the consumer complaint is not maintainable.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary issue of maintainability and perused the record. In order to appreciate the contention of the respective parties, it would be useful to have a look on the definition of consumer as envisaged under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The Sec. reads as under: -