DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.68/2014

1.      Ms. Renu Gupta

2.      Sunita Gupta

          Both D/o Late Sh. Prem Nath Gupta

          R/o B 2/72 Janakpuri,

          New Delhi-110058                                            ….Complainants

Versus

1.      The Director

          AMR, Info Ltd.

2425/11 Gurudwara Road,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

2.      Sh. Ashwani Luthra

          K-14/H, II Floor, Phase-II

          Sheikh Sarai-II, New Delhi                            ….Opposite Parties

                                                Date of Institution: 20.02.14         

                                                Date of Order       : 29.07.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

The case of the complainants, in nutshell, is that the OP No.1 was introduced by the OP No.2 to make investment by booking a flat in their project Kessel-i- valley for making/earning 4 times return/profit  and the OP No.1 assured that he will render all help and services before and after booking of the flat. The cost of the apartment was quoted as Rs.12 lacs (approx.) for which booking amount was Rs.2 lacs. Initially a sum of Rs.80,000/- vide cheque No.449931 and Rs.20,000/- in cash was deposited with OP No.1 through OP No.2 by the complainants and they were issued receipt dated 31.08.09. The complainants made second payment of Rs.1 lac on 27.10.09. Thus, they paid Rs.2 lacs to the OPs but they did not execute the agreement. Thereafter, they had no option except to request for refund of the amount from the OPs.  They were asked to deposit Rs.22000/- for cancellation of the flat which they deposited. Complainants were shocked to see the demand of the OPs. It is submitted that after adjusting the payment, the OP paid only Rs.80,000/-. The OPs are liable to pay Rs.352520 inclusive of interest upto 31.03.2013. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing the following directions:-  

1. Direct the OPs to return to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- deposited by him @ 24% interest.
2. Direct the OPs to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 24% per annum from inception till realization.
3. Direct the OPs to pay the aforesaid amounts amounting to Rs.352520/- (three lakh fifty two thousand five hundred and twenty only) together with future interest.
4. Direct the OPs to pay to the complainant costs.

OPs have been proceeded exparte on 06.09.2016.

Complainant No.2 has filed her affidavit in exparte evidence and also written arguments.

We have heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.

Complainant filed a receipt of Rs.1 lac issued by the OPs (copy annexure-A). The complainant vide letter dated 19.05.2010 requested the OPs for cancellation of the booking in Gold Residential Apartment (copy Annexure-C). The complainants sent various letters and emails to the OPs for refund of the amount. The OPs vide letter dated 17.09.12 issued a post dated cheque of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants (copy Annexure-F).

The OP has the knowledge of the case but not contested the case.

Averments made in the complaint have remained unchallenged and uncontroverted and hence there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

As per the averments made in the complaint the allegations are quite vague. At one place, they have claimed Rs.352520/- inclusive of interest upto 31.03.13 while in the prayer clause the payers are entirely different. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant suffers from vagueness and leads to no conclusion. Secondly, the complainant himself has stated that he had invested the money for making four times profit/return. Thus, the investment made for profit making purpose of earning four times return amounts to a commercial transaction and, hence, the Complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Suffice it to say that the two judgments, namely, R.P. No.1413/2012 decided on 07.09.12 and R.P. No.1510/2011 decided on 12.10.2012 by the National Commission are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 29.07.17.