Delhi

East Delhi

CC/800/2014

RAJESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ERA LAND - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.800/14:

In the matter of:

•  

S/o. Lt. Sh.R.S. Darbari

R/o. D-14, Ashoka Niketan,

Delhi – 110 092

          Complainant

Vs

1. M/s. Era Landmarks

Regd. Office: 153, Okhla Ind. Estate, Phase-3,

New Delhi – 110020

2. Mr. SumitVarana (Managing Director)

M/S Era Landmarks,

Regd. Office: 153, Okhla Ind. Estate, Phase-3,

New Delhi – 110020

3. Mr. Varana (Chairman)

Era Landmarks Head Office: B-24, Sec-3,

Noida – 201301

4. Mr. Honey Katyal (Managing Director)

Investors Clinic Tapasya Corp. Heights

5.  

Noida – 201301

                                                                             Respondents

 

                                                    Date of Admission -03/08/2014

                                                   Date of Order          -22/09/2015

ORDER

PoonamMalhotra(Member):

The brief facts of the present compliant are thatin February 2012 the complainant booked a 2 BHK Apartment admeasuring 1250 Sq.ft. @ Rs3610/- per Sq.ft. vide Registration No.GGN/P&F/1378.  It is alleged that till April, 2012 he has paid 20% of the BSP of the Apartment.Repeated emails to the respondents were of no consequence.  It is in these circumstances that the complainant has prayed for immediate allotment of the 2 BHK Apartment and direction to the respondent to execute the Registered Sale Deed pertaining to the said Apartment. He has further prayed for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- and an order restraining the respondents from cancellation of the booking or to create third party interest in the said Apartment.

            All the respondents were served but the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not put appearance, only Respondent No.4 appeared but did not file any written statement. Case proceeded exparte against all the respondents.

Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case.

Heard and perused the record.

Before going into the merits of this case, the fact as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not needs to be decided.  In the case in hand, the said Apartment was booked by Ms. Namita Darbari and Mrs. Nimmi Darbari as the two applicants who are respectively the daughter and wife of  Sh.Rajesh Darbari, the person who has filed the present complaint.   The payments towards the cost of the Apartment were also made by Ms.Namita and Mrs.Nimmi Darbari as is evident from the copies of the payment receipts filed on record. In view of the facts that the complainant has not furnished any Power of Attorney or Letter of Authorization issued by the applicants, Ms.Namita and Mrs.Nimmi Darbari, in his favour he cannot be treated as a consumer of the respondents with regard to the Apartment booked by Ms. Namita Darbari and Mrs. Nimmi Darbari with them under the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Sh.Rajesh Darbari has no locus standi to file the present complaint and it is, thus, not maintainable under the said Act of 1986. It is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the real consumers i.e., Ms. Namita Darbari and Mrs. Nimmi Darbari may file complaint in their own name, if so advised. We protect their right with regard to the limitation as provided in Section 24A of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.

 

 

 (Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                        (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                                                                                President