APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Rajiv Dalal, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, AR PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd APRIL 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 503/2011, ountry Club India Limited & Ors. versus Nirmal Kumar Pandey,vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 10.01.2011 in consumer complaint no. 508/2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad, allowing the said complaint, was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 3/OP No. 3 Sri Y. Rajeev Reddy is the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Country Club (India) Limited, Hyderabad, Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2, M/s Country Club is a division of Country Club (India) Limited. Petitioner No. 5 to 8 are the promotors of the Country Club (India) Limited, whereas petitioner no. 4 M/s Amrutha Estate, is a partnership firm having registered office at Hyderabad. The complainant/respondent Nirmal Kumar Pandey filed the consumer complaint No. 335/2007 before the District Forum, Hyderabad on 10.04.2007 against the petitioners in which it was alleged that the OPs/Petitioners had formulated a scheme for the sale of certain properties near Yadagirigutta and various other places in the State of Andha Pradesh and the said sale of the property was linked to membership of the Country Club. The petitionersactivity was being carried in the name of Country Club or M/s Amrutha Real Estate. In December 2005, the OPs through their agents, approached the complainant with a brochure, offering sale of plots in a venture called, ountry Kuteeram Venturesat Yadagirigutta, Nalagonda District. The salient features of the proposed lay-out were explained to the complainants and it was stated that free membership in their Club will also be conferred upon the purchase of plots in the said properties. The complainant purchased three plots no. 328, 329 and 330, admeasuring 150 sq. yards each in the said venture, ountry Kuteeram Refresh,situated at Ramajipet Village, Yadagiri Mandal, Nalagonda District. The entire sale consideration for the three plots was paid through credit cards in December 2005 itself. The OPs also stipulated that complainant should deposit ` 10,000/- as development / betterment charges, including the registration and maintenance charges for three years to be paid at the time of registration of plots. It was assured through letter dated 03.01.2006 from the OPs that the registration shall be commenced soon. However, despite contacting various officials of the OPs, no action was taken for registering and delivering the possession of the said plots. The complainant demanded a sum of ` 20 lakh by way of damages and compensation including the sale consideration paid by the complainant together with interest @24% p.a. from the date of the complaint from the OP through the consumer complaint no. 335/2007. Before making the complaint, a legal notice dated 04.12.2006 was also issued to the OPs. However, on 06.06.2007, the complainant and OP 1 & 2 entered into a Memo of Understanding (M.O.U.) dated 06.06.2007, vide which the OPs agreed to register four plots, i.e., 2305, 2306, 2307 and 2308, admeasuring 150 sq. yard each, situated at Yashwantpur Village, Jangaon Mandal, Warrangal District in lieu of previous three plots, i.e., 328, 329 and 330. The OPs also paid a sum of ` 1.20 lakh to the complainants. It was specifically agreed in this MOU dated 06.06.2007 that the project will be completed and the four plots will be registered within 18 months from 04.05.2007. The complainant also agreed to pay ` 10,000/- for each plot towards development charges and for registration of plots. The OPs agreed to pay a sum of ` 12 lakh being liquidated damages in case of default in executing the sale-deed as per the MOU. The complainant then withdrew the consumer complaint no. 335/2007 from the District Forum. However, the OPs failed to start any development activity in the area and also did not collect ` 10,000/- as development charges from the complainant. The complainant then filed another consumer complaint no. 508/2009 dated 23.04.2009 which is the subject matter of the present litigation between the parties. 3. It has been stated in this complaint that the OPs should be directed to register four plots 2305, 2306, 2307 and 2308, each admeasuring 150 sq. yard in favour of the complainant or, alternatively, to pay a sum of ` 12 lakh being the liquidated damages in terms of MOU dated 06.06.2007, and also to award damages of `_5 lakh for deficiency in service. In their reply to the complaint, OPs stated that OP No. 1 had established Clubs in various cities of India and as a membership drive, OP No. 1 published a scheme inviting the general public to become members in OP No. 1 Club by paying membership fee and to avail services created by OP No. 1. In the said process, OP No. 1 evolved a scheme to allot land free of cost to each person who intended to become member of OP No. 1 as incentive. The allotment of plot was never a sale and the question of collecting sale consideration does not arise. The complainant did not pay ` 10,000/- for each plot and further, due to various hurdles faced by the OPs in availing permission from the local bodies, registration of plots could not be done. The District Forum after hearing the parties directed the OPs to complete the entire venture named as olf Villageand also register four plots in the name of the complainants by collecting an amount of ` 10,000/- per plot or in the alternative, to pay a sum of ` 12 lakh to the complainants in terms of MOU dated 06.06.2007. The District Forum also awarded a compensation of ` 25,000/- and litigation cost of ` 5,000/- to the complainant. An appeal was preferred by the OPs before the State Commission against this order which was dismissed by impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners gave a brief narration about the facts of the case, saying that the earlier complaint no. 335/2007 had been withdrawn by the respondent/complainant, as the matter was settled between the parties and a MOU dated 06.06.2007 was entered. The second complaint on the same issue was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. Moreover, the complainant is stated to have purchased four plots from the OP and hence he does not fall within the definition of onsumeras the transaction in question is clearly a commercial one. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the orders passed by this Commission in hilukuri Adarsh versus Ess Ess Vee Construction[as reported in III (2012) CPJ 315 (NC)] saying that when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it means the booking of said premises for commercial purpose, and hence the complainant is not a consumer. The learned counsel also referred to order passed by this Commission in aj Kumar versus M. G. Motors & Anr.[as reported in III (2012) CPJ 693 (NC)], saying that the order passed by the Consumer Fora below was nullity, as they had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the OPs have clearly shown deficiency in service towards him because they had not even acquired the title of the property which they wanted to sell to him. He has drawn our attention to the prospectus issued by the OPs for their scheme, ountry Kuteeram The complainant had booked three plots after being allured by the Scheme floated by the OPs. Later on, when they failed to execute the sale-deed, he filed consumer complaint no. 335/2007 and also started criminal proceedings against the OPs, following which they entered into a MOU with him, and also agreed to give him four plots instead of three. Learned counsel stated that in their brochure, OPs have described very attractive features for the project but in reality, no development had taken place at the site. The complainant just wanted compensation as per terms and conditions of the MOU and he did not want any plot at this stage. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the orders passed by the Honle Apex Court in ational Seeds Corporation Ltd. versus M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr.[(2012) 2 SCC 506] saying that the consumer fora had jurisdiction to take cognisance of the case, as they provided an additional remedy to take care of such cases as per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that they had already acquired the land in question and they were ready to have the registered deeds affected in favour of the complainant. The land could be given to them on s is where isbasis, although they had not paid the development charges so far. 7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The factual matrix of this case brings out very clearly that the opposite parties 1 & 4, M/s. Country club (India) Limited and M/s. Amrutha Estate are engaged in the business of purchasing and selling the land sites in question in the name of developing country clubs. They have even published the necessary brochures to allure the prospective customers, copies of which are on record, as for example, the brochure regarding the scheme, ountry Kuteeramhas listed the propelling features of the project as follows:- onderful landscaping amidst beauty of nature. Favorite destination for weekend freak outs. Pleasant place that sooths the senses. Non-pollutant zone. Immediate appreciation on investment and no lock-in period. Running Water Pipelines Sewer Lines Fully Developed Landscape . Foot path with Curb Stones Club House 8. The complainant had booked three plots of 150 sq. yard each 328, 329 and 330 in the said scheme of the OPs in the first instance. However, when the OPs failed to transfer the said properties, the first complaint was filed and there were also criminal proceedings between the parties. There was mutual settlement between the parties, as a result of which the consumer complaint was withdrawn and a memorandum of understanding was signed on 06.06.2007, according to which 4 plots with numbers 2305, 2306, 2307 and 2308, admeasuring 150 sq. yard each, were to be given to the complainant at some different place in a different scheme in lieu of 3 plots proposed to be given earlier. The development charges of `_10,000/- were to be paid for each plot and the registered deeds were to be executed within 18 months. It has also been stated that if the OPs failed to transfer the said plots, the complainant shall be entitled to get ` 12 lakh as damages. When the OPs failed to honour the commitment made in the MOU dated 06.06.2007, the instant consumer complaint was filed on 23.04.2009. The relief demanded in this complaint is as follows:- irect the opposite parties to complete the entire venture named as olf villageand register Plot Nos. 2305, 2306, 2307 and 2308 each totalling to 150 sq. yards totally admeasuring 600 sq. yards in Sy. No. 103, 107 and 108P situated at Yeswanthapur Village, Janagaon Mandal, Warangal District under the name and style of Country club India Ltd., at Golf (v) in favour of complainant or alternatively to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- being the liquidated damages in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.06.2007. 9. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence filed by the parties allowed relief to the complainant as follows:- oint No.3:- In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part and we direct the opposite parties to complete the entire venture named as olf Villageand register plot Nos. 2305,2306,2307 and 2308 each totaling to 150Sq.yards totally admeasuring 600Sq.yards in Survey Nos. 103,107 and 108P situated at Yeswanthapur Village, Janagaon Mandal, Warangal District under the name and style of ountry Club India Ltd., at Golf Village in favour of the complainant by collecting Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) per each plot within two months from the date of receipt of this order. OR Alternatively the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs only) being the liquidated damages in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 06-06-2007. The complainant is also entitled to the compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as against Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) claimed and costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Time for compliance: Two months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. It is clear from the order passed by the District Forum that they have provided two alternatives to the OPs either to get the plots registered by collecting the development charges or to return a sum of ` 12 lakh to them. This order was upheld by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 16.11.2012. 11. Based on the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we fail to find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the said order. During the course of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that they were ready to execute the required registered deeds. It is, therefore, not understood as to why they have challenged the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum by way of revision petition, rather than taking steps to implement the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum. Moreover, it is a settled legal proposition that the scope of revision petition is limited and interference should be called for only when there is a patent jurisdictional error. In the present case, we do not find any justification that the petitioners should not implement the orders passed by the Fora below. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.