RAJENDRA PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 15. 07. 2004 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereafter, the State Commission) in appeal no. A-1544/2000. By this order, the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum directing the original opposite party (petitioner before us and referred to as such) to refund to the respondent (the original complainant, hereafter referred to as the complainant) the amount of Rs. 65,081/- (which the complainant had deposited with the petitioner towards purchase of a shop in the commercial complex being then built by the petitioner) along with interest @ 18% p. a. on the said amount of Rs. 65,081/- from the dates of the respective deposits till payment. In addition, the District Forum ordered the petitioner to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 3,000/ -. However, the State Commission disallowed the compensation of Rs. 10,000/ -.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks to rely on three main grounds, viz. , (i) the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, the Act) because the shop he paid for was meant for commercial purpose; (ii) the delay in completion of construction of the shopping complex in question (in which the complainant had booked a shop) was on account of force majeure as well as restriction by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA); and (iii) the complainant failed to pay the full consideration for the shop with interest etc. , in terms of the contract (licence deed between the parties ).

(3.) THE complaint arose in 1998 and was in respect of deficiency in service. The version of the Act then in force (i. e. , prior to the amendments by Act 62 of 2002, effective from 15. 03. 20023) defined [vide section 2 (1) (c) (iii)] a complaint, in respect of a service, to mean any allegation in writing made by a complainant that - (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from any deficiency in any respect; further, the Act then in force had the following definition of a consumer of service [vide section 2 (1) (d) (ii)]: (d) consumer means any person, who (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid. . when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person. Thus, in 1998, the hiring or availing of any service (s) on payment by a person for even a commercial purpose did not disqualify that person from being a consumer under the relevant provisions of the Act. The then applicable explanation below sub-clause (d) (i) of section 2 (1) of the Act regarding goods, excluding purchasers of goods for commercial purpose from the ambit of the definition of consumer, did not apply to purchasers of services in 1998. Clearly, therefore, the complainant/respondent was a consumer under the Act as applicable in 1998 and this much - emphasised ground has no leg to stand on.