CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.577/2010

SH. NITIN GOEL

S/O SH. R.C. GOEL

R/O 1/5, CIVIL LINES,

RAM KISHORE ROAD,

DELHI-110054

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

VS.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.,

ANS HOUSE, 144/2,

ASHRAM, MATHURA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110014

………….. RESPONDENT

                                                                             Date of Order:09.10.2015

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that he has booked three villas in the project of OP and paid a total sum of Rs.16,50,000/-.  In the month of March 2009, complainant visited the site to see actual progress of the work.  Complainant was surprised to find that the work was not running properly at the site.  Complainant felt some foul play at the end of OP and realized that possession of the flat would not be handed over to him within the agreed time.  Complainant had been regularly visiting the site to see the progress so that the possession could be handed over in time.  OP kept convincing the complainant that the possession would be handed over in time which was false and frivolous assurance given by OP to the complainant.  All efforts of complainant including having meeting with the senior staff of the OP could not bring any fruitful result.  Finally the complainant approached OP with a request to refund his amount.  OP agreed to settle the amount of the complainant and further agreed that against the payment of Rs.5,50,000/- which was deposited by the complainant in respect of one villa, the complainant would be paid Rs.4,67,500/-.  The complainant believing the version of OP handed over the original documents of all the three villas on 26.3.2009 to OP but till date the complainant has been paid an amount of Rs.6,01,500/- only and still amount of Rs.10,48,500/- remains to be paid by OP.

Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.10,48,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. since 22.8.2006 till September 2010 and Rs.1 lakh for compensation. 

OP in the written statement took the plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The complaint is also time barred.  It is not disputed that complainant booked three villas.  It is not disputed that the aforesaid amount was paid by the complainant.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and carefully perused the record.

It is submitted by Ld. counsel for OP that complainant has booked three villas in the project of OP hence complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  He has placed on record the copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission dated 04.9.2014 in case of Smt. Kusum Tyagi Vs M/s M. Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Complaint No.244/2014).  In that case complainant ha booked two flats and it was held in para 7 as under:-

“We have perused the complaint carefully.  The complainant had booked a number of plots.  She is not a ‘consumer’ in terms of the definition of ‘consumer’ as given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Law has been laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in a catena of judgments as well.  We are, therefore, of the considered view that the complaint is not maintainable.  The same is hence dismissed.”

Since complainant has booked more than one Villa, he is not a ‘consumer’.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

         (D.R. TAMTA)                                                                     (A.S. YADAV)

            MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT