Delhi

East Delhi

CC/334/2015

GIRISH AHEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANCHSHEEL - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 334/15

 

Shri Girish Ahuja

R/o A-66, Nirman Vihar

Delhi – 110 092                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd.

C-17, Panchsheel Colony

Ajmer Road, Jaipur                                                                                        ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 30.05.2015

Judgment Reserved on:09.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 30.01.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Girish Ahuja has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against M/s. Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. (OP) for deficiency in services. 

2.        The facts in brief are that in the year 2006, the complainant booked a plot of 350 Sq. Yds. in the project Panchsheel Park with        M/s Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. (OP) at Jaipur by making an initial payment of Rs. 1,83,750/-.  The total sale price of the plot was fixed at                   Rs. 7,87,500/- which had to be paid in installments.    He was allotted plot No. A-195 in the said project by OP and a Plot Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between both the parties.  He made various payments towards the installments totaling to Rs. 3,23,750/- till July, 2007.

            It is stated that even after 9 years of booking, there was no possibility of the said project being ready alongwith all the amenities.  On 14.06.2013, complainant sent a letter to OP demanding the entire amount paid by him alongwith interest @ 24% p.a., but OP had failed to comply the same.  Therefore, he has prayed for refund of Rs. 5,07,500/- being the total amount paid along with interest @ 18% p.a.  Further, he has prayed for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards losses and damages suffered by him alongwith cost of litigation. 

3.        In the reply filed on behalf of the OP, they have taken various pleas such as complainant deposited part amount till July, 2007 while as per terms and conditions, the possession could be delivered only after deposit of 95% amount of total consideration of
Rs. 7,87,500/-; complainant himself was a defaulter; the complaint is baseless or time barred as the same has been filed after lapse of more than two years from the payment of last installment on 14.07.2007; this forum has no jurisdiction as all transactions regarding this case occurred at Jaipur.  Other pleas of the complainant have been denied. 

4.        The complainant in her rejoinder to the Written Statement has controverted the pleas made in the written statement and has reasserted her pleas made in the complaint.

5.        In support of his complaint, the complainant has examined himself and has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited copy of advertisement (Ex.CW1/A), receipt and booking form (Ex.CW1/B), agreement (Ex.CW1/C), letter for payment of balance amount (Ex.CW1/D), letter for refund (Ex.CW1/E) and present complaint (Ex.CW1/F)

            In defence, OP has examined Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Director of Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., who has deposed on affidavit.  He has got exhibited photocopy of the schedule of payment as per plot buyer agreement reminded to the complainant vide letter dated 04.07.2007 (Ex. R/1)

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. (OP) that this District Forum was not having jurisdiction as the dispute in respect of plot of land of 350 sq. yds. was in the township in the name and style of Panchsheel Park in Jaipur.  The receipt was issued from Jaipur office.  Plot-Buyer agreement was executed at Jaipur.  Thus, no cause of action has arisen at Delhi. 

            He has further argued that there was a simple sale of plot, which was not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.  He has further argued that OP has office in Gurgaon and Jaipur and not in Delhi. 

He has further argued that complaint was hit by limitation as the last payment made by the complainant was in the year 2007, whereas complaint was filed in the year 2015. 

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the plot was booked at Delhi.  He has drawn attention of the forum to the deposit registration form which was submitted at Delhi as well as to the advertisement for booking of plot where Delhi contact number has been stated.  Thus, his argument has been that the cause of action has arisen at Delhi.

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the evidence and the documents placed on record.
Firstly, the argument in respect of limitation is taken up.  If the documents placed on record are gone through, it is noticed that application for registration of plot has been made on 18.04.2006.  The first payment has been made on 18.04.2006 for an amount of                Rs. 1,83,750/-.  Payments have been made from time to time making a total of Rs. 3,23,750/- till July 2007 as averred in para 3 of the complaint.  Thus, the fact remains that the complainant has made the payment up to July 2007 and he has filed the present complaint on 11.05.2015 with the prayer for refund of entire amount of Rs. 5,07,500/-.  It means that the complainant has filed the present complaint after a period of 8 years.  Though, he has stated that the cause of action arose on 14.06.2013 when he sent a letter to OP to refund the entire amount by writing a letter on 14.06.2013 for refund of amount will not extend the period of limitation, as the complainant did not take any action when the cause of action arose on July 14, 2007 as stated by the complainant himself.  Thus, the complaint, which is filed beyond a period of two years was barred by limitation.

            Coming to the second argument that the cause of action has arisen at Delhi, if a look is made to booking receipt of dated 08.08.2007, it is noticed that the said receipt has been issued from their corporate office at Jaipur.  Even Builder-Buyer Agreement has been executed at Jaipur.  The plea taken by the complainant that the plot was registered from Delhi as in the deposit registration form, the address has been shown as New Delhi.  This plea of the complainant cannot be accepted as from perusal of the deposit registration form, it is noticed that this Forum has been addressed to “M/s. Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd.,      C-17, Panchsheel Colony, Ajmer Road, Jaipur”.  By merely mentioning the place as “New Delhi” will not create cause of action. 

Further, with regard to the plea that the advertisement for plots was having Delhi contact number cannot be accepted as in the said advertisement, registration office as well as corporate office has been stated as Jaipur.  Thus, there is no force in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the complainant that deposit registration form and advertisement was having New Delhi address as this does not give rise to cause of action, but these are the facts in the form of evidence to prove the cause of action.  The cause of action have arisen at Jaipur as the builder-buyer agreement and receipt have been issued from their Jaipur office.  Not only that, all the correspondence have taken place from their Jaipur office.  Even in some of the letters, which have been addressed to the complainant contain the address of their Gurgaon office.  Thus, the fact remains that nothing has happened at Delhi to give rise to the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  Even otherwise also, it has been laid down in Ganeshlal vs. Shyam (MANU/SC/1134/2013) that where the sale of plot of land simpliciter was concerned and if there were any complaint, the same would not be covered under the Consumer Protection Act.  Thus, in the present case, there has been sale of plot of land simpliciter and by relying upon the judgement in Ganeshlal vs. Shyam (supra), the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer, therefore, his complaint cannot be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act.

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this complaint deserves its dismissal and the same dismissed.  

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

        Member                                                                        Member    

           

    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President