CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
UdyogSadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.155/2023
SMT. HEMLATA
W/O SHRI KARAMBIR SINGH,
R/O V & P.O. MACHHGARH,
TEHSIL BALLABHGARH,
DISTRICT FARIDABAD,
HARYANA 121004
THROUGH HER ATTORNEY
SHRI KARAMBIR SINGH…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
WTC NOIDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE,
NEW DELHI – 110025
HAVING ITS SITE OFFICE:
PLOT NO. TZ-13A & 13B, SECTOR TECH ZONE,
GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA,
DISTRICT GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR (U.P.) …..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-10.05.2023
Date of Order-22.09.2023
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
- The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP in non-payment of assured return.
- The complainant booked a unit measuring 500 sq. ft. in a project namely World Trade Centre Noida at Plot no. TZ/13A. The project was being developed by OP and complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 16.12.2016 as booking amount. He was allotted a unit No. 1D-b-05-12.
- The complainant initially opted for payment plan III wherein OP would pay 10% per annum return on 20% down payment of basic price. Thereafter, the complainant opted for an accelerated plan wherein he would pay 95% basic price and would receive 12% per annum return. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.24,79,642/-. Complainant was supposed to pay 5% of Basic Sale Price at the time of possession.
- OP paid 12% assured return amounting to Rs.23,729/- from the month of April, 2017 till January, 2020. Thereafter, the OP stopped making the payment of the assured return in violation of the Agreement dated 17.03.2017 executed between the parties. OP started making excuses of financial crunch for paying the assured returns. Complainant further states that only 5 instalments were paid by OP after 2020 intermittently. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.02.2023.
- The complainant prays for the payment of assured return amounting to Rs.8,30,515/- along with interest @18% per annum, Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and handing over the possession of the allotted unit.
- Perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant had entered into the agreement to sale wherein she was promised annual return.
- Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Kusum Goenka & Anr. vs M/S Wianxx Impex Pvt. Ltd. Complaint No.1636/2017 has observed that:
However, he has also mentioned about the assured returns. The Hon'ble NCDRC have laid down that issue relating to assured return tantamount to commercial transaction, which means, from that angle the complainants keeping in view the provisions contained under Section 2(1)(d), would not be a consumer.
…………
The Hon'ble NCDRC in the matter of Smt. Priti Arora vs. M/s. ARN Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., CC. no. 246/13 decided on 06.04.2017 has ruled that any transaction having assured returns is a commercial transaction. Commercial transaction is not covered within the definition of consumer.
Having regard to the discussion done we are of the considered view that the transaction of the complainants is of a commercial nature and if that is the case they are not entitled to raise the consumer dispute under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- In the present case, the complainant entered into Agreement to sale with OP with promise of assured annual return @12% per annum. Admittedly, the annual return was paid by OP till January, 2020 @12% per annum. Subsequently, annual return was paid intermittently for five more months. OP did not pay any annual return thereafter. The complainant in her prayer seeks reinstatement of annual return along with interest and compensation.
- In the light of discussion above, such transactions relating to annual return are of commercial nature. Hence, this complaint is not covered under Consumer Protection Act, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
