TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commission rules against Complainant in Consumer Complaint, citing lack of consumer status and barred by limitation.</h1> <h3>SURENDRA KAPUR Versus M/s PUJA CONSTRUCTION LTD. & 3 ORS.</h3> SURENDRA KAPUR Versus M/s PUJA CONSTRUCTION LTD. & 3 ORS. - TMI Issues:1. Breach of contract and deficiency of service2. Barred by limitation under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 19863. Whether the Complainant qualifies as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986Issue 1: Breach of contract and deficiency of serviceThe Complainant alleged that the Opposite Parties failed to deliver a residential duplex flat as promised in a Settlement Agreement. Despite repeated assurances, the possession was not handed over. The Complainant invested in a Joint Venture Project but faced issues with the terms and amount changed unilaterally by Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant sought a refund with interest, leading to a Settlement Agreement in 2006 for a duplex flat. However, delays and lack of progress in the project led the Complainant to demand a refund of the full value of the flats with interest and punitive damages. The Opposite Parties defended by claiming no deficiency in service and attributing delays to external factors beyond their control.Issue 2: Barred by limitation under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986The Opposite Parties argued that the Complaint was time-barred under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it was filed after 2 years from the alleged cause of action. They contended that there was no consumer-service provider relationship, as the Complainant initially invested for profit and later agreed to take flats for profit as well. The Opposite Parties highlighted the arbitration clause in the registration form and emphasized the need for detailed evidence in the proceedings.Issue 3: Whether the Complainant qualifies as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986The Opposite Parties raised a preliminary objection, stating that the Complainant, being a businessman with a history of investments, was acting as a money lender seeking interest on the investment. They argued that the transaction was commercial in nature, with the Complainant seeking a refund as an extension of the initial investment. The Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant, as an investor, did not fall under the definition of a 'Consumer' as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission dismissed the Consumer Complaint, deeming it not maintainable and granting the Complainant the liberty to approach the appropriate forum.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues of breach of contract and deficiency of service, the limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the qualification of the Complainant as a Consumer. The judgment delves into the specifics of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Commission's decision based on the legal framework and evidence provided.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
