9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in short 'NCDRC' in Consumer Complaint No.141 of 2020. NCDRC by the said judgment and order has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to refund within 2 months an amount of Rs.7,16,41,493/- (Rupees Seven Crore Sixteen Lakh Forty One Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Three only) along with delay compensation @ 6% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till its payment, failing which the rate of interest payable would stand increased to 9% per annum. 3. The respondent is a private limited company in the business of real estate development. It booked a flat for residential use of one of its directors and his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17, probably for want of arrangement of necessary funds, part occupancy certificate and due to the allotment of the said flat to one another person, declined to take possession and to pay the balance amount as required by the appellant. The appellant, thus, cancelled the booking/allotment of the respondent vide Termination Letter dated 31.08.2017. 7. The respondent, thus, issued a letter dated 22.09.2017 seeking refund of the entire amount of Rs.7,16,41,493/- (Rupees Seven Crore Sixteen Lakh Forty One Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Three only) along with interest. The appellant, instead of refunding the amount, vide letter dated 18.11.2017 forfeited the amount deposited by the respondent. 8. In the above background, the respondent appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decisions of this Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers and Others (2020) 2 SCC 265 and Crompton Greaves Limited and Others vs. Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2121. In context with the deficiency and unfair trade practice, if any, adopted by the appellant, NCDRC opined that the appellant had created confusion by double allotment of the flat in question. It was first allotted to one Nakul Arya on 10.04.2013 and then to the respondent on 29/30.06.2016. The controversy with regard to the aforesaid double allotment was resolved by the rectification deed executed on 17.03.2018. Therefore, the NCDRC held that the appellant was not justified in cancelling the booking/allotment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. vs. M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2008 decided on 09.07.2024 wherein one of us (Hon'ble P. Mithal, J.) was a member, this Court after considering all earlier decisions on the subject including Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Harsolia Motors and Ors. (2023) 8 SCC 362 ruled that in sum and substance to determine whether the goods purchased by a person (which would include a legal entity like a company) were for commercial purpose or not within the meaning of the Act would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily "commercial purpose" is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate business rather than for personal use of its Director and his family. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the law as has been culled out above, we do not find any error or illegality in the finding of the NCDRC that the purchase of the aforesaid flat was for personal use and not as part of the commercial activity and as such the complaint filed by the respondent was maintainable. 18. The second issue is regarding deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the appellant in the matter of allotment of the flat in question in favour of the respondent and in its cancellation resulting in the forfeiture of the amount deposited. 19. Undisputedly, the flat in question was allotted in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and circumstances of the case is not justified, consequently the forfeiture is also bad in law. The NCDRC upon consideration of the above facts and circumstances, irrespective of the fact that the appellant may have the power to advance the date of delivery of possession of the flat allotted or offer possession on the basis of part occupancy certificate, rightly held that the appellant was guilty of adopting unfair trade practice and since there was double allotment of the flat, there was deficiency in service. 20. In the light of the above discussion, we agree with the NCDRC that the complaint of the respondents was maintainable and that since the services rendered by the appellant were held to be deficient. It has thus rightly issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
