AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant/ respondent booked a commercial unit with the appellant in a project namely Bus Terminal-cum-Commercial Complex, to be developed in Sector 57, Mohali. Vide allotment letter dated 26.10.2010. Unit 15 in Tower C, 8th floor was allotted to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.35,75,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.12,51,250/- to the appellant. As per clause 1.3.5 of the allotment letter the construction was likely to be completed within 30 months from the date of start of lease period, subject to force majeure circumstances. The lease of the project was executed in favour of the appellant on 13.08.2009 and the possession was ought to have been delivered within 30 months meaning thereby it ought to have been delivered on 20.12.2012. Since the possession was not handed over despite several years thereafter, the complainant/ respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint on 12.12.2018.
The complaint was resisted by the appellant which took preliminary objections that the complainant was not a consumer. The allotment made to the complainant as well as the payment received from him was however, admitted.
The State Commission vide its order dated 19.07.2018 directed as under:
To refund Rs.21,09,064/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realisation, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and
To pay Rs.35,000/-, as compensation, for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant including litigation expenses;
Compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and failing that they shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount of Rs.35,000/- at the rate of 12%per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission by way of an appeal.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the unit booked by the complainant was a commercial unit, and he has failed to prove that he had booked the same for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. The complainant according to him has also failed to prove that he was unemployed.
Paragraph 3 of the Consumer Complaint to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
"That the complainant is senior citizen wants set up a small business for his livelihood having no other source of income to earn his livelihood. Complainant buy a shop/ space in Unit no. 15, Block/ Tower C, C & C Capital, Floor 8th, Super Area 715 sq ft type of office space, (5000/- per sq ft) total cost of the project is Rs.35,75,000/-"
No material or evidence was produced before the State Commission to prove that the complainant owned any other commercial space from where he could run his small business for the purpose of earning his livelihood. Therefore, there was no reason for the State Commission not to believe the assertions made by the complainant in his Consumer Complaint supported by his affidavit. It is not necessary for the purpose of explanation below Section 2 (1) (d) of the C P Act, 1986 that the consumer should be unemployed at the time he purchases the goods or hires or avails the service. If the complainant did not have own any commercial premises, and therefore, booked the premises in question for the purpose of earning his livelihood by working himself in the said premises he would be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the CP Act, 1986.
On merits it is not in dispute that the possession was not offered to the complainant even after six years after the date for which the possession ought to have been offered as per the agreement between by the parties. The unit in question was booked on 26.10.2000 the lease deed in favour of the appellant came to be executed on 13.08.2009. In terms of section 1.3.5 of the allotted flats, the possession ought to have been offered by 26.02.2012. But the possession was not offered even by 12.12.2018 when the complaint was instituted.
The order passed by the State Commission directing the appellant to refund the amount paid by the complainant along with interest in terms of PAPRA Regulations, therefore, cannot be disputed.
For the reasons stated herein above, I find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed with no order as to cost.