Delhi

East Delhi

CC/449/2015

RAM MOHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREMIA PROJEETA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  449/15

 

1. Shri Ram Mohan Saxena

S/o Shri Brijwasi Lal Saxena

I-644, Govind PUram

Ghaziabad – 201 002                                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Premia Projects Ltd.

Through its Directors

Regd. Off.: 3/18/4F, Block-3

East Patel Nagar,

New Delhi – 110 008                                                         …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 25.06.2015

Judgement Reserved on : 20.03.2018

Judgement Passed on: 22.03.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Ram Mohan Saxena against M/s Premia Projects Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant Shri Ram Mohan Saxena made a booking of space in the project Premia Corporate City on Plot no. 201, Knowledge Park-V, Greater Noida, by making a payment of             Rs. 10,15,922/- vide cheque nos.  328977, 328979 and 328980 in the month of June/July, 2013 and cash of Rs. 2,2,05/- in August 2013.  He was assured a monthly compensation of Rs. 9,367/- for making substantial payments.  Agreement of dated 03.08.2013 and receipts for Rs. 10,15,922/- have been issued. 

            Complainant was asked to make the next payment of 25% on completion of 3^rd floor roof.  OP was to make payment of Rs. 9,367/- per month for 50 months or date of offer of possession whichever was later w.e.f. July, 2013 to the complainant being compensation for early payment and started paying the same to the complainant beginning July 2013.  Some of the cheques of OPs were returned unpaid.  OP did not inform the complainant of the progress in construction and demanded a sum of       Rs. 8,81,354.93 vide letter of dated 16.05.2014. 

            When the complainant approached OP for justification, upon not getting any response he was constrained to write letter of dated 09.09.2014.  The complainant under Right to Information Act, made an application to Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and made representation to the OP also, which were not replied.  GNIDA tendered information sought by the complainant which showed that OP did not own the land and plans for project had not been approved till 2014.  The complainant sought refund of the amount deposited and surrendered all original documents to OP vide their letter of dated 17.12.2014.  OP stopped making payment of Rs. 9,367/- w.e.f. January 2015. 

            The complainant was refunded an amount of Rs. 4,75,496/- on 18.03.2015.  The complainant has prayed for refund of remaining amount of Rs. 5,40,426/- alongwith interest @ 24%p.a. from April 2015  till the date of refund ; compensation for delay in payment of agreed compensation for the month of January to March 2015; Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation on account of harassment, tension and agony and cost of litigation.

3.         In reply, Premia Projects Ltd. (OP) have taken the stand that complainant was not a consumer as he booked a commercial space which does not fall under the definition of consumer.  They have also stated that the booking was cancelled at the request of the complainant and had refunded the amount after deduction of the cancellation charges, as agreed in the Memo of Understanding (MOU) dated 03.08.2013.  They have also stated that value of the commercial unit was more than Rs. 20,00,000/-.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.         Rejoinder to the WS was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of his complaint.

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the contents of the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of application form agreement dated 03.08.2013 and receipts for                 Rs. 10,15,922 (Annexure C-1, C-2 and C-3), copy of letter dated 16.05.2014 for demand of Rs. 8,81,354.93 (Annex. C-4), letter dated 09.09.2014 to OP (Annex. C-5), copy of application under RTI Act dated 10.09.2014 (Annex. C-6), reminder dated 12.11.2014 to OP and GNIDA (Annex. C-7 and C-8), copy of letters written by the complainant to OP (Annex. C-9, C-10 and C-11), copy of letter dated 17.12.2014 (Annex.      C-12), copy of pay-in-slip (Annex. C-13) and copies of reminders dated 12.04.2015 and 08.06.2015 (Annex. C-14 and C-15)

            In defence, M/s. Premia Proejcts Ltd. (OP) have examined            Shri Tarun Shienh, Director of OP, who have deposed on affidavit and reiterated the contents of the reply.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of MOU dated 03.08.2013 (Ex.OP-1/1), copy of provisional allotment letter dated 08.09.2013 (Ex.OP-1/2), copy of bank guarantee issued in favour of complainant (Ex.OP-1/3), copy of letter dated 29.09.2014 (Ex.OP-1/4) and copy of NOC dated 07.01.2015 by broker of complainant (Ex.OP-1/5 colly.).

6.         We have heard the complainant in person and have perused the material placed on record.  None appeared on behalf of OP to argue.  Though, they have not appeared, but the documents placed on record have to be gone into. 

            The first and foremost point which arises in this complaint has been as to whether the complainant was a “consumer” or not.  If the documents placed on record such as MOU are perused, it is noticed that the complainant booked a unit under the category “Corporate Studio”, measuring 300 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 22,54,800/-.  The documents placed on record show that the unit was in Premia Corporate City, Plot no. 201, Knowledge Park-V, Greater Noida.  Thus, from the documents placed on record, it is evident that the complainant booked a space known as “Corporate Studio” in the Porject Premia Corporate City which was a “commercial unit”.  There is nothing on record or in the complaint that he booked this commercial unit for his livelihood.  That being so, the complainant cannot be said to be a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act.  Not only that, the value of the commercial unit has been Rs. 22,54,800/- which is more than Rs. 20,00,000/-.  Thus, the complaint of the complainant fails on the ground that he was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act as well as on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Hence, this complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          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