Haryana

StateCommission

A/846/2015

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

DALJIT SINGH DAHIYA - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

27 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.846 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 06.10.2015

Date of Decision: 27.03.2017

 

M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, A company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act,1956, having its Registered office at Parsvnath Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station,Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (through its authorized signatory Mr. R.C.Gupta General Manager (CRM).

…..Appellant

Versus

Daljit Singh Dahiya S/o Jai Singh Dahiya, r/o H.NO.9/46, New Campus CCS HAU, Hisar, Distt. Hisar.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.A.S.Khara, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.R.S.Dhull, Advocate counsel for the respondent .

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Keeping in view the amenities etc. are to be provided he booked a shop on 04.07.2009 having value of Rs.39,21,600/- @ Rs.69,433.42 per square meter in a project known as Parsvnath City Center, Sonepat. He was allotted shop number GF 159.  On 22.07.2009 an agreement was executed in between them and by that time he had deposited Rs.13,72,560/-. The O.Ps. were requested to complete the construction in time, but, to no avail.  So he be given the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted with costs and the respondents may kindly be directed and ordered as under:-

1. to expedite the development works at the site without any further delay.
2. To pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.1372560/- from the date of booking till the date estimated for completion of work and offering possession of shop to the complainant and
3. Also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2000000/- to the complainant in lieu of causing harassment and humiliation by such acts and conduct of negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondents.
4. To pay 11000/- as counsel fee.

Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled, may also kindly be granted to the complainant.”

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that the complaint was not covered by the definition of consumer as provided under section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In Short “Act”) because he booked a shop for commercial purpose.  If the services are to be availed for commercial purpose then one could not be considered as consumer as opined in Commissioner Municipal Corporation Vs. Rajesh Singh 2 (1993) 308. The complainant did not make payment as per schedule. He was not entitled for the relief claimed and the complaint be dismissed.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 31.07.2015 and directed as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the  respondents to pay interest at the rate of 09% per annum to the complainant on the amount lying deposited till the delivery of the possession. The respondents are further directed to accept the balance amount from the complainant and to handover the possession of the shop to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of passing. The respondents are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousands) to the complainant for rendering deficiency services, for harassment, mental agony and under the head of litigation. With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that complainant is a public servant and he booked this shop for running his business after retirement. It was for self-employment and earning livelihood. So he is covered by the definition of consumer.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  It is no-where alleged by the complainant that he booked this shop for the purpose of earning livelihood after his retirement.  It is also no-where alleged that he  is a public servant and booked this shop from his pay and other emoluments. From the perusal of Ex.C-2 it is clear that it was shop Buyer’s agreement.  This project was also a commercial project. In Revision Petition No.4044 of 2009 titled as M/s JCB India Ltd. Vs. M/s chandan Traders and Ors. Decided on  19.02.2015  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “National Commission”) opined that simple averments that anything was taken for earning livelihood is not sufficient to presume this fact to be true. A party has to produce specific evidence to prove this fact.  When there is no evidence qua the fact of personal necessity or earning livelihood such like averments cannot be believed. These views are fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Pradeep Singh Pahal Vs. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CPJ 1 (2016) 219.   Learned District forum failed to take into consideration this aspect. Impugned order passed by learned District forum is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained, because when consumer fora is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any matter it is not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgement without jurisdiction amounts to nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.  Hence impugned order dated 31.07.2015 is set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

8.  The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

March 27th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.