Delhi

StateCommission

A/562/2017

LALLU RAM SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT SINGH RATHORE

22 Nov 2017

ORDER

N THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :22.11.2017

Date of Decision :23.11.2017

FIRST APPEAL NO.562/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Lallu Ram Saini,

S/o. Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saini,

R/o. E-204 Pawittra Apartment,

Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096.                                                     ……Appellant

                                                                        Versus

M/s. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

Registered Office at 1/18B,

Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.

 

Also at 208. Ocean Complex,

Sector-18, Noida – 201301.                                                                      ……Respondent

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                     Yes

 

Present:        Shri Amit Singh Rathore, counsel for the appellant.

                        Non for the respondents.

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

          Assailing the orders dated 22.09.17 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) in CC No.172/17 in the matter of Lallu Ram Saini vs. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer  within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, Shri Lallu Ram Saini, resident of Delhi, for short appellant, has preferred this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Act) against M/s. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter as referred to the respondent praying for the relief as under :-

a.      Pass an order setting aside impugned order dated 22.09.17 passed by the Hon’ble District Consumer Forum; and

b.      Pas any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interst of justice, equity and good conscience.

          Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the appeal are these.

The appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the respondents on the ground that no allotment letter had been issued despite the fact they had booked for a plot after paying the booking amount. Prayer was made before the District Forum for the refund of the amount alongwith compensation @18% per annum. On 15.09.06 the complainant had booked a plot of size 165 sq yds. @ Rs.3500/- per sq yrd in the project namely “Milange City at Village Bhakrotam Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur, Rasthan”. Booking amount was paid for which receipt was also issued. But despite that no allotment was made nor the possession was handed over admittedly there was no written agreement on record. It was argued by the appellant/ complainant that he was given false assurance and promise to hand over the possession of the plot which has not been done and consequently the OP have indulged in unfair trade practice.

The ld. District Forum after hearing the matter held that the complainant who is the appellant here  is not a consumer.

The matter was listed before us on admission hearing on 22.11.17 when the ld. Counsel for the appellant appeared and advanced his arguments on the admission of the appeal. We have also perused the record of the case.

It is a statement of fact that the appellant had booked a flat. Mere booking of a flat would not make the appellant a consumer to be able to raise a dispute under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Yashwant Rai Puri in RP 3129/15 decided on 01.08.2016 has held that,

“since no allotment either was made to the complainant, he did not hire or avail the services of the Bathinda Development Authority for housing construction, which is a service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, he cannot be said to be a consumer of the said authority. Hence, no ground for interfering with the orders passed by the for a below is made out. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed. It is however, made clear that dismissal of the revision and the complaint shall not come in the way of the petitioner/ complainant approaching a Forum other than a Consumer Forum for the redressal of his grievance”.

Having regard to the  orders passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the District Fora and we accordingly uphold it.

Ordered accordingly.

          Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. Let copy for the order be sent to District Forum for information.

File be consigned to records.

                                                                      

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)