Delhi

East Delhi

CC/209/2022

ABHAY KUMAR CHANDALIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

POLICE CITY SEHKARI AWAS SAMITI LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV VERMA

04 Aug 2023

ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHAY KUMAR CHANDALIA Vs. POLICE CITY SEHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.

 

CC No.                        209/2022

Date:-             04.08.2023

Present:-       Sh. Abhay Kumar Advocate for Complainant

 

Arguments on admission of the complaint heard further.

            It is the case of the complainant that he was earlier member of the OP Society and had Share Certificate No. 587, as issued by the OP since 26.08.1998 and on account of this Share Certificate, the society allotted him 200 sq. yards plot in the opposite party’s Cooperative Society and on 30.07.2012 he paid Rs. 3000/- as token money. On further demand raised by the OP, he paid Rs. 5 lakh on 29.07.2012 Rs. 14,01,600/- on 05.11.2012, and Rs. 2,44,800/- on 02.02.2016 and in total he paid an amount of Rs. 21,49,400/- to the OP.

OP raised further demanded of Rs. 4.5 lakh vide demand letter 31.10.2016 but the complainant was not in a position to make the balance payment and accordingly he approached the OP and it was agreed that OP shall allot another plot measuring 100 sq. yards instead of earlier allotted plot measuring 200 sq. yards and both the parties also agreed that total payment of Rs. 21,49,400/-  as has been made by the complainant towards earlier allotted plot, would be adjusted to the complainant’s new 100 sq. yards plot. But the said plot was never given to the complainant and ultimately complainant wrote a letter dated 28.12.2018 demanding the refund of the payment made by the complainant, upon which the OP vide letter dated 19.02.2019 issued one letter to the complainant thereby asking him to resign from the membership first so as to the process of repayment/refund of the amount be initiated and under this compelling situation, he resigned from the membership and OP refunded him Rs. 21,49,400/-, after accepting the resignation letter and that amount has been paid by the OP. Now he has filed the present complaint claiming himself to be a consumer seeking direction to OP to allot 100 sq. yards plot to him in the society alongwith compensation of Rs. 5 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs. 2 lakh.

      The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. The current preposition from the facts which has emerged is that as on today the complainant is neither member of the society, nor has left with any consideration towards the payment of 200/100 sq. yards plot. The Commission has enquired as to how he is a consumer now, once the respondent has returned the amount in full and final and he even has resigned from the membership of the society upon which Ld. Counsel for complainant has relied upon Subhankar Bhattacharjee and Ors. Vs. Progressive Developers and Ors. The Commission has perused the judgment. This judgment is not para-materia with the facts of the case rather in this very judgment another judgment of by Hon’ble NCDRC is referred title Manu/CF/0410/2014 : 2014 (3) CPR 76 (Meerut Development Authority Vs. Manoj Gupta) wherein it has been held that once the respondent has claimed the refund, then she ceased to be a consumer. Accordingly the complainant is no more a consumer of OP and the present complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission.

            Not only this, the plot otherwise is not covered under the provision of the present Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Commission has also enquired if there was any builder buyer agreement by which OP was supposed to make certain development in and around the plot, before handing over the same to the complainant to which the Counsel for complainant has replied there was no builder buyer agreement. Further also there is no fact on record by which it can be inferred that OP was bound to develop the plot area or had to provide certain services to the complainant. This preposition is duly covered vide judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Ganeshilal Vs. Shyam 26.09.2013 delivered by H.L. Gokhale,     J. Chelameshwar where it was interalia held in para 6…

6. It is submitted that failure to hand over possession of the plot of land simpliciter cannot come within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, State Commission or National Commission. We quite see merit in this submission of Mr. Lambat, particularly having seen the definition of 'deficiency' as quoted above. We may, however, note that when it comes to “housing construction”, the same has been specifically covered under the definition of 'service' by an amendment inserted by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18th June, 1993. That being the position, as far as the housing construction by sale of flats by builders or societies is concerned, that would be on a different footing. On the other hand, where a sale of plot of land simpliciter is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be covered under the said Act ……that the plot which is to be build by the builder certain services have to be provided by the builder in developing the plot then such complaint falls within the category of consumer otherwise allotment of same plot would not make him the consumer and above all there is no document on record which plot number specifically was given to the complainant.

 

Keeping in view of all such facts, the Commission is of the opinion that complainant is not a consumer nor is covered within the definition of ‘services’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Therefore complaint of the complainant is rejected.

File be consigned to Record Room.