Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:-

          These consumer complaints are disposed of by this common order since they involve identical facts and also involves  common question of law.

          The complainant-Damayantiben (complaint no.70/2003), complainant-Veluben (complaint no.71/2003) and complainant-Rasilaben (complaint no.72/2003) claimed to have purchased a property demarcated as plot no.7 from survey no 26, 26-B/3 B+4 within limits of Deolali Cantonment Board admeasuring 399.75 sq.mtrs. by registered sale deed dated 17/09/2002 from one Smt. Vilas Praful Pipaliya.  To the sale deed opposite party (in all the three complaints), namely, Harish P.Ajmera was a consenting party since, it is alleged in the said sale deed that the owner of the land orally agreed to sale the same to him earlier to this transaction.  It is  further alleged by the complainants from all the three complaints that they came in contact with the opposite party who represented to them that he is developing said plot.  It is further alleged that each one of the complainants were to get one flat each admeasuring 1340.5 sq.ft. @ `1301/- per sq.ft. aggregating to `17,60,0000/-.  However, neither the construction was started nor any formal agreement for constructions or development of the plot was executed between the complainants and opposite party.  It is also alleged by the complainants that relying upon the aforesaid representation, complainant-Damayantiben paid `10 Lakhs, complainant-Veluben paid    `10 Lakhs and complainant-Rasilaben paid `5 Lakhs to the opposite party.  But seeing that neither any agreement was executed nor any construction work was coming up and further opposite party telling to them at the time of execution of sale deed dated 17/09/2002 that complainants had to complete the construction on their own, a lawyer’s notice dated 17/12/2002 was y sent to the opposite party on behalf of all the complainants and thereby calling the opposite party to refund of the monies paid, along with the compensation to meet out the loss suffered by each one of the complainants to the extent of `2 Lakhs.  Said notice was falsely replied by the opposite party and therefore, these consumer complaints were filed on 18/02/2003 inter alia claiming the relief of  return of respective amounts paid with interest@24 % p.a. and claiming further compensation of `2 Lakhs by each one of the complainants.

          These consumer complaints were opposed by opposite party stating that he was willing to complete the construction and all the complainants have no reason to withdraw from the project.  It is also alleged by the opposite party that complainants/Veluben and Rasilaben did not pay any amount but he had received `20 Lakhs from the complainant/Damayantiben only and consideration for the sale deed dated 17/09/2002 i.e. `5 Lakhs was paid to him by the complainant.  It is also alleged by him that if the construction work could not be carried out then complainants were to re-convey the property in his name.  The objection as to the jurisdiction of the State Commission is also raised pointing that the property situated is at Deolali Cantonment Board, Nashik and the opposite party also resides at Nashik, Deolali.

          We heard Adv.Mr.Anand Patwardhan for complainant and. Adv.Mr.U.B.Wavikar for opposite party in all the complaints. Perused the record.

          As far as territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, it could be seen that valuation of each of the complaint is above `5 Lakhs.  Amendment to the pecuniary jurisdiction came with effect from 15/03/2003.  These consumer complaints are filed prior to it and thus, the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain these consumer complaints.  Therefore, objection regarding the pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction does not survive.

          Reading the complaints as they are, it could be seen that calling off the oral agreement for the construction of flats, complainants claimed back the amounts which they claim to have paid towards expected construction work of the flats.  Interest over the said amount @24% p.a. is also claimed.  In addition to it for loss which each of the complainant claimed to have suffered, compensation of `2 Lakhs is also claimed by each one of the complainants.  Thus, squarely, complainants came with a case specifically alleging that the deal to construct the flats was no more alive and they want refund of amounts paid.  Therefore, it is a money claim which will not fall within the ambit of consumer dispute and in this background the complainants cannot be termed as a consumer when these complaints were filed.

          It is also not disputed by both the parties that complainants together filed a civil suit bearing regular civil suit no.68/2004 against the opposite party in Civil Court, Nashik. Said suit is for declaration.  After alleging that complainants are in possession of the property consequent to the sale deed in their favour, it is also alleged that they themselves plan to carry construction over the said property and even the plans were submitted to the authorities.  But since opposite party/H.Ajmera is likely to obstruct their construction work and possession, injunction is claimed against him for not doing said mischief.  Thus, looking to the pleadings of the complainants in the said civil action, it could be seen that they categorically made a statement about their possession over the property and their own plan to undertake construction activity over the property and further stated that opposite party has no concern with the said property or construction.  It would be further noted that opposite party from these complaints also filed special suit no.304/2003 before civil court (Senior Division) at Nashik for specific performance of contract.   Thus, looking to the civil dispute which is pending between the parties i.e. complainants and opposite party, it could be seen that civil rights pertaining to the alleged deal/transaction between them could be determined squarely in this civil action and as such, their arise no question to settle the dispute between the parties in a summary proceedings like consumer dispute.

          For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

                                                :-ORDER-:

1.                 Consumer complaint nos. 70, 71 and 72/2003 stands dismissed.

2.                 No order as to costs.

3.                 Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.