Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1250/2018

SH. RISHI BHUSHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2019

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :20.09.2019

Date of Decision : 01.10.2019

COMPLAINT NO 1250/2018

In the matter of:

 

            SH. RISHI BHUSHAN,

            S/O SH. A.B. GUPTA,

            R/O 210, VASAND ENCLAVE,

            NEW DELHI-110057

 

 

                                                            ………Complainant

Versus

           

M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD,

HAVING COPORATE OFFICE AT 6^TH FLOOR,

ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110001.

……..Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

 

 

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. Initially this complaint was filed in District Forum New Delhi. Where it was registered as CC-475/2015. Later on the same was returned for being presented in this Commission due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the decision of 3 Member Bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla. 
2. The facts mentioned by the complainant are that he booked residential plot measuring 300 sq. yard @ Rs, 3740 per sq. yard in M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd by making payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- as booking amount on 27.09.2004. The OP proposed the township in Sonipat and demanded Rs. 3,86,000/-. The complainant paid said sum on 03.01.2006. In all he has paid Rs. 5,61,000/- which is 50 per cent of the total cost. More than 10 years have passed but complainant had not heard anything on the subject matter from the OP. No physical possession has been given. He has suffered injury for the last 10 years due to deprivation, harassment, mental agony and financial loss for which he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-.
3. The OP filed written statement raising preliminary submission that complainant is a habitual investor who has made multiple booking with various builders. He had booked another unit in one of the other projects of the present OP and filed a consumer complaint before District Forum, New Delhi vide CC-13/2010 titled as Rishi Bhushan Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. He does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant is permanent resident of New Delhi. He booked a plot in upcoming project of OP in Sonipat, Haryana. It is clear that he merely invested in the property for gaining profits from the booked plot. The complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The complainant purchased unit from Sh. Sandeep Jain, proprietor of M/s Vardhman and Associates and not from the OP. Said Sh. Sandeep Jain is a necessary party. The complainant gave an affidavit cum-undertaking and Indemnity bond. As per clause-7 of the said undertaking if complainant is not allotted any plot, he will accept refund of the deposited amount with simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of acceptance of his nominations, the OP company. The said affidavit cum undertaking and indemnity bond is dated 22.12.2005.
4. The complaint is time barred.
5. Complicated question of the facts and law are involved which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction. The relevant claim by complainant exceeded Rs. 20 lakh. Hence, District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. On merits the OP took the same defence.
6. The complainant filed replication and his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand OP filed affidavit of Sh. Madan Lal Dogra, Deputy General Manager (CRM). The complainant have filed written arguments.
7. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments.
8. The counsel for complainant submitted that expression ‘commercial purpose’ has not been defined in Consumer Protection Act. The same came for interpretation before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3SCC 583. It was held that ‘commercial’ denotes something which is connected with or engage in Commerce, Marketile, having profits as the main aim. The OP has not been able to make out any such case. The complainant booked residential plot for the need of his family.
9. On the other hand, the counsel for OP strenuously urged that complainant needed only one plot for him and his family. He had nowhere denied in the rejoinder or affidavit that he booked another plot with Of itself for which he filed CC-13/2010 titled as Rishi Bhusan Vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd in District Forum New Delhi. He has not explained that he had a large family or hat he needed more than 1 plot for meeting the need of his family. The counsel for OP relied upon decision of National Commission in Chilukuri Adarsh Vs. M/s ESS ESS VEE Construction –III (2012) CPJ 315 in which it was held that booking was construction of two showroom. In para -2 it is mentioned that this has been the consistent view of National Commission    that even when the Consumer had booked more than 1 unit of residential premises, it amount to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose. Reference was made to the decision in Jagmohan Chabbra Vs. DLF Universal Ltd IV (2007) CPJ 199 NC. The said order was upheld by Hob’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal no. 6031-6031 of 2008 vide order dated 29.03.2008.
10. Apart from the above, similar view has been taken by the National Commission in Indrajeet Datta Vs. Smardhi Developers-II (2015) CPJ 342, CC-208/2012 titled as Saavi Gupta Vs, Omaxe decided by 01.10.2012, Ved Kumari Vs. Omaxe 2014 SCC online NCDRC 120, Madhu Sehgal Vs. Omaxe CC0270/2013 decided on 20.03.2014, CC-5/2014 titled as Sunil Gupta Vs. Today Home decided  on 03.02.2014, TDI Infrastructure Vs. Rajesh Jain I (2016) CPJ-377.
11. In CC-148/2016 titled as Puran Kohli Vs. BPTP decided by National Commission on 06.11.2017 law went to extent that concealment of other bookings is sufficient to entail dismissal of the complaint. This is what has happened in the case in hand.
12. In view of above I find that complainant is an investor, he made booking for earning profit when the price rise in the market. He is not a consumer.
13. The complaint is dismissed. However he is given liberty to file Civil suit for recovery after excluding the time spent in the present proceedings as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – II (1995) CPJ-1.
14. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs.
15. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)