JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, (ORAL) The complainant booked a residential plot admeasuring 250 sq.yd. with the opposite party in a project, namely, ‘Amstoria’, on 26.10.2010. Plot No.C-148 in the aforesaid project was allotted to him. The parties then entered into a buyers agreement dated 24.8.2011. As per clause 5.1 of the aforesaid agreement, the possession was proposed to be delivered within 24 months from the date of sanction of the service plan of the entire colony or execution of the plot buyers agreement whichever be later. The grievance of the complainant is that despite he having already paid Rs.10115188/- to the opposite party between 2010 and 2012, the possession has not been delivered to him. The complainant is therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the aforesaid amount along with compensation. 2. The OP has contested the complaint on several grounds. In its affidavit by way of evidence, the OP has also claimed that the complainant is not a consumer since he and his family had made investment in several projects. Reliance is placed upon an email dated 28.1.2014 sent by the complainant to the opposite party admitting that he himself had purchased 3 plots in Parklands, Faridabad another project of the OP in addition to the booking of the plot in question in the project ‘Amstoria’ in Gurgaon. 3. The email dated 28.1.2014 sent by the complainant to the OP which the complainant who is present in the Court does not dispute, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:- “Non receipt of Sale Deed of the properties at Parklands, Faridabad Dear Sir, We are holding following 9 properties in BPTP Parklands at Faridabad. Plot No. Owner’s Name J2-1 Mrs. Harmander Kaur Kohli J2-3 Mr. Urvinder Singh Kohli J2-5 Mr. Urvinder Singh Kohli J2-7 Mr. Urvinder Singh Kohli-HUF J2-9 Mr. Pavan Kohli J2-11 Mr. Pavan Kohli J2-13 Mrs. Sahiba Kohli J4-1 Mr. Pavan Kohli J2-25 Mr. Urvinder Singh Kohli The registrations of the said plots are being done in 11/12/13 & 6/1/14. The Sale Deed of the said properties have still not been received. You are requested to kindly inform us from where and when we can collect the sale deeds.” It would thus be seen that the family of the complainant had booked as many as 9 plots in one project of the OP, namely, BPTP Parklands at Faridabad. Out of them, 3 plots bearing Nos. J2-9, J2-11, J4-1 were booked by the complainant himself. The complainant who is present in the Court admits that the aforesaid plots had been booked by the time the plot in ‘Amstoria’ was booked by him. He also states that out of the 3 plots booked in Parklands, 2 plots have already been sold by him in the year 2014-2015, which happened about 4 years after the plot in ‘Amstoria’ was booked by him. In the complaint, there is not a whisper about the aforesaid plots booked by the complainant, not to talk of giving an explanation for booking a plot in ‘Amstoria’, when the complainant had already booked as many as 3 plots in the project BPTP Parklands. The aforesaid concealment by itself is sufficient to disentitle the complainant from claiming any substantive relief from this Commission. It is settled legal proposition that a person approaching a court/forum for the redressal of his grievance, must necessarily disclose all relevant facts whether those facts be favourable or unfavourable to him. A person concealing a material fact while approaching a court or forum for his cause is not entitled to any discretionary relief and the court/forum must refuse relief to him on this ground alone. It can hardly be disputed that the information about having booked as many as 3 other existing bookings of plot, before booking the plot in question was relevant for the purpose of deciding this complaint since it would have a direct bearing on the question as to whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act or not. The complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts from this Commission by not disclosing the aforesaid information. 4. Even on merits, the booking of a 4th plot despite having booked at least 3 other plots, coupled with the sale transaction of 2 plots out of the 3 plots booked in BPTP Parklands is a clear indicator that the plot in question was booked by the complainant for speculative purposes of selling the same at a higher price. Therefore, he cannot said to be a genuine plot buyer and the obvious inference is that the services of the OP were availed by him for a commercial purpose. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, The complaint is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. It is however, made clear that the dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainant approaching a court or forum other than a consumer forum for the redressal of his grievances. If another remedy is availed by the complainant it shall be open to opposite party to resist the same on such grounds as may be open to it in law. | 
