CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.205/2021
SMT MANJU BHARADWAJ W/O C.S BHARDWAJ,
R/O-F123, BITA-II, GREATER NOIDA,
G.B. NAGAR, 201308 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S SPLENDOR BUILDWELL PVT. LTD AND ANR.
REGD & CORPORATE OFFICE SPLENDOR FORUM
JASOLA NEW DELHI, 110025
- SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD. CORPORATE OFFICE SPENDOR FORUM
5th FLORR, 03 JASOLA DISTT CENTER
JASOLA NEW DELHI, 110025.
THROUGH
SH. HIRDYA VIKRAM BHATIA CMD
SPLENDOR GROUP OF COMPANY SPLENDOR FORUM
5th FLOOR, 03 JASOLA DISTT CENTER JASOLA
NEW DELHI, 110025
P/S SARITA VIHAR DELHI …..RESPONDENTS/ OPs
Date of Institution-27/08/2021
Date of Order- 21/07/2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA-President
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs.11,80,755/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum along with refund of principal amount of
Rs.17,60,605/-. The complainant is also seeking payment of assured return of Rs.16,140/- per month with effect from August 2021 till actual realization. OP 1 is M/s Splendour Buildwell Pvt. Ltd and OP 2 is Splendour Landbase Ltd.
It is the case of the complainant that she is a senior citizen lady who invested in the project of Splendour Land Base Ltd. situated at Sector 83 NH8 Gurugram in 2008 for personal enhancement and livelihood after her husband’s retirement. It is stated by the complainant that she had paid an advance of Rs. 5,10,000/- vide PNB cheque number 047112 dated 05.01.2008 and and was given a receipt dated 17.01.2008 which is annexed along with the complaint. It is also stated by the complainant that she had also paid Rs. 7,65,000 in 9 instalments @ Rs.85,000/- each, the receipt is annexed along with the complaint. The total amount deposited by the complainant is Rs.12,75,000/- as 10.10.2008. It is further stated that the OP promised to allot the commercial area of 724 sq. ft. in their upcoming project at ground floor @ Rs. 7,500 per sq ft Sector 83, Gurgaon. The complainant was in for a shock having being informed by the OP that proposed commercial project at Sector 83, Gurgaon is not going to be constructed by the OP for the reasons best known to them.
The complainant was asked to change their booking from ‘Splendour Galleria’ Sector 83 Gurugram to ‘Splendour Epitome’ upcoming commercial projects of the OP situated at Sector 62, Gurugram. It is further stated that the OP transferred the original booking to another upcoming project ‘Spectrumone’, Sector 58, Gurugram against assured return plan.
It is stated that Splendour Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. has succeeded to all the right, interest and application of Splendour Landbase Ltd. (initial investment made with Landbase) in the project at Sector 58, Gurugram vide a tripartite agreement signed on 30.03.2013 between Splendour Land Base Ltd, intending allottee i.e the complainant and Splendour Buildwell Ltd. It is further stated that at the request of lender Splendour Land Base transfer of Rs.12,72,975/- along with interest of Rs.5,42 033/- was accepted and space measuring 269 sq ft super area with assured return plan in IT/ITES was confirmed for the complainant. It is further stated that MOU was signed between the complainant and OP 1 i.e Splendour Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. dated 01.04.2013 and the same is annexed along with the complaint. As per the said MOU amount of Rs.17,60,605/- along with service tax of Rs. 54,403/- @ 6 by 454 sq. ft. was allotted to the complainant.
It was also agreed that the OP 1 will pay Rs.60 per sq. ft. per month @1269 sq. ft. super area i.e 16,140/- as assured return with effect from April 2013 till the completion of the said project and thereafter the OP will pay Rs. 50 per sq. ft. super area per month to the complainant till the said project is leased out to the prospective lessee.
It is further stated that OP No. 1 started paying Rs.16,140/- per month as assured return with effect from 01.04.2013. Initially this payment used to be made by 7th of each month however, later the date was extended to 15th of every month. It is stated that these assured returns were paid till July 2018 and thereafter no payments have been made. It is also stated that several messages and calls were made to the OP and finally vide email dated 09.12.2020 it was stated;
“With reference to your trail mail and as discussed with you the company will refund your booking money before 30th April 2021. Your co-operation in this regard is highly appreciated”.
It is further alleged that no payment has been made by the OP since then, in spite of the service of legal notice on him on 11.05.2021 therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint.
Notice was issued to the OP as per order dated 22.12.2021. Thereafter, it was observed in the order that the OP has received the notice and OP was proceeded ex-parte. Evidence by way of affidavit and written submissions have been filed by the complainant.
The complainant has also stated in his complaint that the said property was taken by her for personal enhancement and livelihood after her husband’s retirement livelihood therefore, she can be taken to be a consumer even though the property is commercial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kohli vs Pureearth Infrastructure Ltd. (Civil Appeals 9004-9005 of 2018), decided on 01.10.2019 has held that if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is a ‘consumer’ and what would constitute a “Commercial Purpose” is a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. Also, it was not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., “uses
them by himself”, “exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood” and “by means of self-employment” make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood.
The entire material has been gone through carefully and it is evident that the OP has, on a number of occasions changed the allotment which was provided to the complainant. In fact, all these allegations have been admitted to, by the OP as is evident from the annexures annexed along with the complaint. It is also evident from the complainant that the OP was regularly paying cheques pertaining to assured returns to the complainant and thereafter stopped paying the money. It is also evident from the documents that the OP has, by way of email dated 09.12.2020, promised to refund the money deposited by the complainant but have not kept their promise.
This Commission is of the view that the OP 1 has been deficient in their services. OP 1 is directed to refund Rs. 17,60,605/- along with interest @ 7 % p.a from September, 2018 till realisation. Since this entire amount is being refunded, the complainant is not entitled to assured returns. This refund has to be made by the OP 1 to the complainant within three months from the date of this order failing which the OP 1 is liable to give this amount with interest @ 10% per annum till realisation.
Order be uploaded on the website. File be consigned to the record room.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
CASE NO. 205/2021
A review was filed on 26/07/2022 for correction of typographical errors in the final order dated 21/07/2022. The power of review has been provided under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is as under:
Review by District under certain cases:-
The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it, if there is an error apparent on the face the record, either suo moto or on application filed may be any of the parties within 30 days of the said order.
Therefore, on the application of the counsel for the complainant the said order is reviewed to the extent on page 2
“instead of “service tax of Rs. 54,403/- @6 by 454 square feet”
The order should be read as service tax “@Rs. 6545 per square feet” allotted to complainant.
On page 3 top line, instead of “@1269 square feet.”
the order should be read as “ 269 square feet”
Rest of the order remains the same and does not require any change and should be read as it is.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
