Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1437/2018

BHAVNA DEWAN AND ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S UNITECH REAL TECH PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

LEX FAVIOS

29 Nov 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :29.11.2018

Date of Decision : 07.12.2018

COMPLAINT NO.1437/2018

In the matter of:

 

1. Ms. Bhavna Dewan,

W/o. Shri Sumesh Dewan,

R/o. 19 Uday Park,

New Delhi.

 

2. M/s. Royal Devcon Pvt.

Through its Authorised Signatory

Shri Sumesh Dewan,

Regd. Office C-43, Pamposh Enclave,

Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048.                         ........Complainant

 

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s. Unitech Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

          Through their Directors

 

2. M/s. Unitech Industries Ltd.,

Through its Director     

 

3. M/s. Sanyog Builders Ltd.,

Through its Director                                            ……Opposite Parties

CORAM

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

 

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Complainant no.1 is wife of Authorised Signatory of complainant no.2. The complaint proceeds on the averments that the OPs were constructing a commercial project in the name and style of “The Concourse” on the land situated at Sector-71, Village Fazilpur Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana. The OPs claimed that the said project would be best in class, State of the art commercial centre, which can also be seen by their tag line “positioned for success” used by them in the brochure. The complainants were looking for commercial property for establishing and expanding their business.  They booked unit and were allowed unit no.1506, 15^th Floor, Tower-B, admeasuring 105.77 sq. mtrs alongwith right to use one reserved car parking slot vide MOU and agreement to sell dated 01.08.16. The total sale consideration was agreed to be Rs.56,92,800/-. Complainants opted for investment for return payment plan and paid Rs.39,84,960/-, rest of the amount  i.e. Rs.17,07,840-/- was to be paid at the time of possession. The OPs had to deliver the possession within 12 months or in alternate after the passage of 12 months they assured to pay  a monthly return at the rate of Rs.53.75/- per sq per month of the super area. In other words OPs were to pay assured return of Rs.61,197.60/- per month and the amount for 14 months came to Rs.8,56,766.40/-. The OPs failed to pay the said amount. OP had not been able to deliver possession despite repeated assurances and communications. Complainant sent legal notice dated 09.10.18. Hence this complaint for directing the OPs to deliver possession of the unit, pay Rs.8,56,766.40/- towards assured monthly return alongwith interest @10% per annum, pay Rs.10 lakhs towards mental agony, Rs.2 lakhs toward cost of litigation .
2. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments for the purpose of admission. There are several rubs in the case of the complainant. Complainant no.2 i.e. M/s. Royal Devcon Pvt. Ltd is a company and not an individual. A company can not engage itself in self employment which is sine qua non for invoking explanation to Section 2 (1)(d) Consumer Protection Act.
3. It has been specifically mentioned in para-5 of the complaint that complainants were looking for commercial property for expanding their business meaning thereby that the complainants were already running a business. Thus it is a case of requirement for additional space. In such circumstances it can not be said that the booking was for earning livelihood.
4. In CC No.103/13 titled as Inder Nath Mehra vs. Pure Earth decided by National Commission 15.05.15 it was held that complainant must be unemployed for attracting condition of earning livelihood by self employment. In CC no.183/12 titled as Sikha Birla vs. DLF Developers decided by National Commission on 01.02.13 it was held that when complainant is already working, the booking is for commercial purpose which is excluded from scope of Consumer Protection Act, To the same effect are decisions of the National Commission in Ashish Ahuja vs. Gold Cause Construction 2015 SC online NCDRC 31 and Shakuntalam Apparels vs. Gold Cause Construction 2015 SCC online NCDRC 32.
5. Not only this the complainant have unequivocally stated that OP agreed to give assured return, one year after the booking. This brings the case out of Consumer Protection Act as per decision of National Commission in CC No.246/13 titled as Preeti Arora vs. ARN Infrastructure decided on 06.04.17.
6. For the foregoing reasons the complaint is dismissed in limine.
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
8. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                                                              (O.P. GUPTA)                                                                                                                                                                                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•