The present case emanates over a complaint filed by one Smt. Renu Tewary against Joyotu Land Development Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director and one of the Directors, praying for a direction upon the OPs to deliver/handover the plot of land being no. A-38, measuring about 2184 sq. ft. together with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, or alternatively, refund of present market price of the schedule property valued at Rs. 8,00,000/-, and also for litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.

In short, case of the Complainant is that, she was induced and allured by the offer of the OPs that the schedule property would fetch a handsome return in due course of time.  It was represented by the OPs that they own a vast area of land.  Accordingly, the Complainant entered into an Agreement for Sale with the OPs on 03-04-2003.  The OPs promised that all infrastructural development works would be provided to the Complainant within the stipulated period mentioned in the afore mentioned Agreement for Sale.  The Complainant, convinced by the approach of the OPs and without getting due possession, got the Sale Deed registered on 12-12-2008.  It is alleged that the OPs are not willing and/or are reluctant to give possession of the schedule plot of land. As repeated requests failed to evoke any positive response from the OPs, Complainant is compelled to file this case.

OP Nos. 1&2 contested the case by filing WV.  These OPs denied all the material allegations and stated that the present case is time barred as the Complainant, after taking possession of the plot of land, got the Deed of Conveyance executed on 12-12-2008 but filed this case long after the limitation period got over.  Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the present case.

Point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for by her.

Decision with reasons

Complainant has filed photocopies of Agreement for Sale and the Deed of Conveyance executed by and between the parties.  Since the authenticity of these documents has not been challenged by the OPs, we take the documents at their face value.

Undisputedly, the Deed of Conveyance was executed on 12-12-2008.  In such circumstances, in case the Complainant had any grievance against any aspect of the said agreement, she had a two years window to ventilate her grievance under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  However, it appears, the present case is filed on 28-12-2015, i.e., after more than 7 years since execution of the Deed of Conveyance. Consequently, as it appears, the present case is hopelessly time barred and thus, not maintainable. 

Further, it is candidly admitted by the Complainant that she was induced and allured by the offer of the OPs that the plot of land would fetch handsome return in due course of time.  It goes to show that she did not intend to use the plot of land for self-use.  There is every reason to believe that reselling the property at a higher consideration in some way or the other, driven her conscious to go for it.  As we know, any person, who obtains the goods for resale or commercial purpose, is not a consumer. When goods are bought to resell or commercially exploit them, such buyer or user is not a consumer under the Act.  From this aspect also, the present case is not maintainable.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/108/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP Nos. 1&2 and ex parte against the other OP.  Parties do bear their respective costs.