Delhi

StateCommission

CC/12/290

MANJEET HANS - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :17.07.2017

Date of Decision :19.07.2017

Complaint  No.290/2015

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Mrs. Manjeet Hans,

D-191 Lajpat Nagar,

New Delhi.,                                                                                                ……Complainant

                                                                        Versus

 

M/s. Parsvnath Developer Ltd.,

Corporate Office : 6^th Floor,

Arunachal Building,

19, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-11001.

 

Also at :

 

Regd Office:

Parsvnath Metro Tower,

Near Shahdara Metro Station,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032.                                                                          ….Opposite Party

 

CORAM

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

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

Present: ShriRajeshKajla, counsel for complainant.

 

PER  :SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

           

          Smt. Manjeet Hans resident of Delhi has filed a complaint against .Parsvnath Developer Ltd., herein after referred as the complainant and OP respectively, alleging deficiency in service,praying  for the relief as under:-

1. award a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) towards the compensation for loss suffered by the complainant on account of non delivery of the afore said space of 1000 sqfts. alongwithpendantlite and future interest @18% pa.; 
2. award a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as compensation towards the mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant alongwithpendantlite and future interest @18% p.a.;
3. award a sum of award a sum of Rs.3,39,170/- (Rupees three lacs thirty nine thousand one hundred seventy only) towards the non payment of agreed investment return alognwith interest @18% p.a. from the date when the said return amount became due and payable till realization;
4. award cost of the present proceedings in favour complainant and against the respondent; and
5. passany other or further order as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Facts of the case are these.

The complainant being swayed by the rosy picture of the OP booked a unit in the IT Park Complex Project in Sector-48, District Gurgaon, Haryana on main Sohna Road and made the part payment  of Rs.1,00,000/- as booking amount. It was complex of the size of 1000 sqrft for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/-.

          The complainant made the payment of remaining amount of Rs,12,50,000/-  on 14.02.06. On 15.04.06 after receipt of the total payment of Rs.13,50,000/- a memorandum of understanding was executed between the complainant and the OP, where by & where from the OP agreed to pay an investment return of Rs.26,090/- payable on quarterly basis till such time the  possession of the flat is handed over. However, even after expiry of substantial time from the date of aforesaid payment and MOU the respondent company was unable to even commence the work at site owing to the fact that the OP have not been able to obtain the requisite license, condition precedent to commence the work. The complainant has allegedthat the company has falsely represented to have obtained the license for the purpose and thereby theyhave  made  an attempt to cheat the complainant and the persons alike. Consequently, the complainant got a legal notice issued for the enforcement of the agreement. In the meanwhile OP had also stopped making payment towards investment returns as agreed to.

          This led to filing of the complaint before this commission under the provisions of  Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The OP were noticed by this Commission vide order dated 05.12.12 and in response there to the OP have filed their written statement raising objections both preliminary ground and on merit. In the preliminary objection the OP have stated that the complainant has booked a unit in the IT Park Complex Project in Sector-48, Village Tikri, District Gurgaon, Haryana of the OP, situated at Gurgaon, for making investment in real estate for commercial purposes. Hence the complainant not being consumer, the present complaint is not maintainable. The intention of the complainant in booking of a commercial space was for earning profits, the same being commercially viable.

          The OP have further stressed the point that the complaint is not maintainable  also on the ground of the claim made by the complainant  in effect is for the payment of Rs.3,39,170/- towards non payment of agreed investment return alongwith interest @18% p.a. This amount as claimed is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Fora. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very count alone, wherein the said relief claimed does not fall within the ambit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

          Besides the OP have also submitted that compensation claimed is out of proportion in as much as an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has been prayed for.

          The matter was listed before us on 17.07.17 when none was present on behalf of the complainant . The Ld. Counsel for the OP was present and he advanced his arguments taking the objection referred to above.

          In the absence of the complainant we have  perused the complaint as also the  rejoinder and other documents filed by  the complainant. We have given a careful consideration to the objections of the opposite party. We are unable to agree with their objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction as for the purpose of this subject we have to examine, keeping in view the ruling of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of AmrishShukla decided on 07.10.2016, the total value and the compensation. While applying the ratio of the said judgment in the facts of this case, we hold that this Commission enjoys the  pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this case.

          Coming to the other points raised by the opposite party regarding out of proportion claim of compensation, we have no reason to disbelieve the arguments. Nothing  substantial has been submitted by the complainant to  controvert this objection, in the rejoinder. The Consumer  Fora have been set up for redressal of the grievances of the Consumers  and not to enrich them. The NCDRC in Surender Kumar Tyagi is Jagat Nursing Home reported  in IV(2010) CPJ 199 have held that the compensation has to be reasonable. It is not to enrich the consumer.

          The objection of the opposite party that the transaction done by the complainant in the subject is for the purpose of investment, is sustainable as the complainant by his own admission has sought for, among others, investment returns. If the transaction is for an investment, the complainant   is not a Consumer. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of VedKumari is OmaxeBuildhome Pvt. Ltd. as reported in II(2014) CPJ 146 (NC) has held that one is not a consumer if the flat is booked for investment. Complainant areinvestors and not consumer.

Having regard to these facts we are of the considered view keeping in view the law settled that the complainant had booked the space for the purpose of investment. This amounts to the transaction for a commercial purposed which under the provisions of the Consumer Protections Act, 1986 is inadmissible. Section 2(1) (d) defines Consumer as under:

Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or  promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised  or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when  such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.

The complainant is therefore not entitled for any relief under the Consumer Protection Act and we order accordingly.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)