Delhi

StateCommission

CC/205/2019

PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAI KRIPA REAL ESTATE & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :15.03.2019

Date of Decision : 25.03.2019

COMPLAINT NO.205/2019

In the matter of:

 

Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma,

C-10/27 First Floor,

Sector-15, Rohini,

•  

 

 

Versus

1. Sai Kirpa Real Estate,

B-12, North Ex Mall,

Sector-9, Rohini,

•  

 

2. TDI Infrastructure Ltd.,

Vandhana, Upper Ground Floor,

11, Tolstoy Marg, new Delhi-110001. ……..Opposite Party no.2

 

3. The Cannes Property Management

Services Pvt. Ltd.,

10 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg,

Gole Market, new Delhi-110001. ……..Opposite Party no.3

 

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

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

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The case of the complainant is that it is HUF, it was approached in August, 2011 by OP-1. OP-1 represented that it was business associate cum authorised agent/ authorised dealer of OP-2. He convinced the complainant to book a flat in ‘Espania Heights II’ and quoted the price as Rs.21-22 lakhs. Super area was promised to be 1075 sq. yd. Possession was to be given within three to five years at the most. The complainant made payments religiously. Demand notice dated 09.01.18 dropped a bomb shell after which complainant had been regularly writing to both the OPs. The property is managed by OP-3.
2. Almost every subsequent demand letter from OP mentioned different figures indicating that their accounts and consequent demands are all fake. The complainant booked two flats with a view to live there peacefully after the retirement age of its  karta. One of the flat was sold in May, 2013 when no construction progress was foreseen and when the liquidity of the complainant squeezed badly.
3. The details of the payment for remaining flat are mentioned in para 8 of the complaint total of which comes to Rs.24,72,037/-. In October, 2018 OP-3 issued invoices for maintenance of flat even through no possession  of the flat took place. The complainant protested  but to no use. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs.24,72,037/- with quarterly compounded interest @24% per annum from the date of actual payment till the date  of refund. Cost of Rs.5,000/-, cost of time amounting to Rs.50,000/-, compensation for deep mental and physical agony amounting to Rs.5 lakhs have also been prayed.
4. I have gone through the material on record. The first obstacle is the case with the complainant is that it is HUF which is a juristic person and not a natural person. It has no physical existence. It can not reside. Thus the booking can be taken as a booking for commercial purpose with a view to sell the same as and when price increase. In taking this view I am support edby decision in National commission in. Subhash Moti Lal Shah (HUF) vs. Malegaon Merchants Cooperative Ltd.  I (2013) CPJ 34 A (CN).
5. My aforesaid conclusion gets support from the conduct of the complainant. He booked two flats. He has already sold one flat. The same shows that booking of both the flats was with the same objective in mind. A mere investor does not come within the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act.
6. Multiple booking in itself is indication of the fact that it is commercial . This is so as per decision of National Commission in  Chirikuri Adarsh vs. Essess Vee Constructions 2012 (3) CPR 104, as per decision of the National Commission  in Inderjit Dutta vs. Samridhi Developers II (2015) CPJ 342, CC No.208/12 titled as Savi Gupta vs Omaxe decided on 01.10.12, Ved Kumari vs. Omaxe 2014 STC online NCDRC 120, CC No.270/13 titled as Madhu Sehgal vs. Omaxe decided on 20.03.14, TDI Infrastructure vs. Rajesh Jain I (2016) CPJ 377, CC No.5/14 titled as Suni Gupta vs. Today Homes decided on 03.02.14.
7. As a result of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed in limine.
8. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
9. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)