At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA
By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. R.K. BATTA
For the Complainant : Sandeep Prabhakar, Sanjay Rawat, Advocates. For the Respondents: -------
R.K. BATTA, MEMBER
The case of the Complainant-Association, in brief, is that its members comprise of exporters and have been allotted industrial sheds under the scheme titled ?Export Promotion Industrial Park? at Greater Noida. The said plots are for setting up export oriented units; that substantial investments have been made in the said units for the purpose of contributing towards attainment of the object of industrialization of the state, creating employment, adding to foreign exchange earnings besides adding to the overall economic well being of the region. The complainants have also stated that the OP despite collecting exorbitant maintenance amount has neglected to provide basic facilties and infrastructure. The complainant claims a compensation of Rs. 4,04,09,375/- as also directions to OP to cease and desist and to recover or realize or otherwise enforce the bills and/or demands purportedly towards maintenance charges.
After having heard the Counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainants cannot be considered to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act since the transaction in question is for commercial purpose, which is specifically excluded under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Papers placed on record show that huge payments are due from the Complainant-Assocation as can be seen from Page 147 onwards of the complaint. Be that as it may, the complaint in question cannot be entertained since the tramsaction is a commercial transaction which is
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
specifcially excluded under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of this, the complaint cannot be admitted and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.