JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.9.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint. 2. In 2007, Shri K.K. Gupta paid Rs.9,25,000/- to the OP and booked a plot measuring 500 sq.yards @Rs.9,250/- per square yard. He relinquished his right, in respect of the said plot by selling the booking receipt to complainant No. 1. Similarly, Smt. Ravi Goyal booked a plot measuring 500 square yards for Rs.5,00,000/- @Rs.6500/- per square yard and relinquished her right, in respect of the said plot by selling the booking receipt, to complainant No. 2. Mr. Vinit Kumar also booked a plot of 500 square yards for Rs.9,25,000/- @ Rs.9250/- per square yard, and relinquished his right in respect of the said plot by selling the booking slip to complainant No. 3 in Feb, 2008. 3. In March, 2008, the complainants approached the OP for transfer of the said booking receipts, in their names, whereupon, they were asked to deposit Rs.400/- per square yard, as transfer fees, and development charges @15%, on the market rate of the plot, and 10% P.L.C. Charges, whereas the development charges and other charges were already included in the cost of the plot, while booking the same. Later on, the transfer fee was reduced to Rs.100/- per square yard. It was further stated that the Regional office of the OP did not accept their request and refused to transfer the booking receipts. It was further stated that the plots were not transferred in the name of the complainants(now appellants) and were blocked by the OP in an illegal and arbitrary manner. It was further stated that the OP sold more plots than the number of plots available, with it. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the OP was now finding excuses to cancel the booking of these plots. A legal notice was issued to the OP on 13.01.2009, but to no avail. On 17.01.2010,the complainants came to know, from the news, in the Tribune, that the OP had started delivering possession of the plots to various persons, and that too, without obtaining NOC from the Ministry of Environment. It was further stated that the OP was deficient in rendering service to the complainants, and also indulged into unfair trade practice. When grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no other alternative, a complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed. 4. The OP, put in appearance, and filed reply, pleading therein, that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the plots in question were situated in Mohali. It was further pleaded that even the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the value for which the plots were got booked by K.K.Gupta, Ravi Goyal and Vinit Kumar, was more than Rs.20 Lacs. It was stated that the complainants alleged to have purchased the registration deposit rights from Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar respectively. It was further stated that they never submitted any application for transfer of registration deposit rights with regard to the plots in question. It was further stated that Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar, who were the original applicants, who got booked the plots, had never approached the OP to seek transfer of their registration deposit rights, in favour of the complainants. It was further stated that the complainants had not acquired any status, in their company, for getting any allotment of plots in Mega Housing Project at Mohali. It was further stated that the OP permits the transfer of registration deposit rights, from the original applicant, to anybody else, nominated by him, after charging the requisite fee. It was further stated the cheques submitted by Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar towards the balance sale consideration were dishonored by the Central Bank of India, and, therefore, the OP was left with no other option, but to cancel the booking. It was further stated that the question of transfer of the registration deposit rights of plots, in the name of the complainants, which stood cancelled, could not arise. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Complainants/ Appellants. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the Complainants/appellants, submitted that, after having purchased the booking receipts, in respect of the plots, from Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar, they became the prospective vendees, and, as such, fell within the purview of the definition of ‘consumer’. He further submitted that, since Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar had sold booking receipts, in favour of the complainants, they were not necessary parties. He further submitted that no agreement was executed between the complainants and the OP. He further submitted that a request was made by the complainants, for the transfer of the deposit receipts of Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar, in favour of the complainants, but the same was not accepted by the OP. He further submitted that the District Forum, arrived at a wrong conclusion, that since Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar had no right and interest, in the plots, after cancellation of their booking, they could not transfer any valid right, in favour of the complainants. He further submitted that the District Forum was also wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that no evidence was produced that actually the deposit receipts were sold by Sh.K.K.Gupta and two others, in favour of the complainants. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that neither there was territorial jurisdiction, nor pecuniary jurisdiction, with the District Forum, to entertain and decide the complaint. He further submitted that there was no privity of contract, between the complainants, and the OP. He further submitted that the complainants did fall within purview of ‘consumer’ as defined in the Act. He further submitted that even no document was produced on the record to show that Sh.K.K.Gupta and two others, relinquished their deposit receipts, in favour of the complainants. He further submitted that such rights could be relinquished in favour of the complainants, until and unless, permission had been granted by the OP for transfer of the same, which was never granted. He further submitted that since Sh.K.K.Gupta and two others failed to deposit the amounts, towards the price of the plots, their booking was cancelled and amount already deposited by them, stood fofeited, and, as such, the complainants, could not claim any right in respect of those plots. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The first question, that arises for determination, is, as to whether the complainants/appellants, fell within the definition of ‘consumer’ or not ? Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar got booked the plots with the OP, after paying the booking amounts. Such deposit receipts could not be transferred, by them, in favour of the complainants, without the permission of the OP, which was never granted. Not only this, Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar never sent any intimation to the OP, regarding the transfer of the booking receipts, in favour of the complainants. It is evident from Annexure R-7 that the OP received cheque in the sum of Rs. 4,62,500/-, from Mr.K.K.Gupta, but the same, when presented, was dishonoured. It is evident from this document, that an ample opportunity was given to K.K.Gupta to make payment due, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the Company decided that the amount of Rs.9,25,000/- received, at the time of booking of the plot, stood forfeited, and the booking be treated as cancelled. Mrs. Ravi Goyal, the original applicant, was sent letter Annexure R-10, by way of final intimation, for payment of outstanding amount of Rs.8 lacs. Vide this letter, she was requested to make the payment within 10 days, from the date of receipt of the letter, failing which, it was to be treated that she was not interested in the project. Annexure R-13 is another letter in which Mrs.Ravi Goyal was intimated that since the cheque dated 15.5.2008 for Rs.4,75,000/- sent by her, to the OP, towards the price of the plot, when presented, was dishonoured, the OP had decided to forfeit Rs.5 Lacs received, at the time of booking, and cancel the booking. Annexure R-15 is the letter, which was written to Mr.Vinit Kumar, vide which he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,62,500/-. Again, vide Annexure R-17, final intimation was given to Mr.Vinit Kumar that he had not paid the amount, due against him. Ultimately, vide Annexure R-20, the amount of booking paid by him stood forfeited and the booking was cancelled. Since, the original bookings, in favour of Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar, on account of non-payment of the outstanding amounts, against them, were cancelled, and the booking amounts were forfeited, they had no right in the plots, to relinquish the same, in favour of the complainants. There was no agreement, executed between Sh. K.K. Gupta, Smt. Ravi Goyal and Sh. Vinit Kumar and the OP. There was no privity of contract, between the complainants, and the OP,and, as such, the complainants, who alleged to have stepped into their shoes, did not have better rights, than the original applicants had. Under these circumstances, neither the original applicants, whose bookings were cancelled and the amounts of booking were forfeited, nor the complainants who allegedly purchased the booking receipts, from them, fell within the purview of the definition of ‘consumer’, and, as such, complaint under Section 12 of the Act was not maintainable. 11. Coming to the pecuniary jurisdiction, it may be stated here, that the same is required to be decided, from the relief, claimed by the complainant, in the complaint. The relief which was claimed by the complainants, in the complaint, was that the OP be directed to transfer the booking receipts and allot the plots and handover possession to them, within the time frame as per the rules and regulations, framed by the Punjab Urban Development Authority, besides imposing heavy penalty for deficiency in service. The complainants did not seek relief of refund of the amounts of booking receipts alongwith interest. As such, from the relief, sought for by the complainants, it could not be said that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. 12. The District Forum was also right in holding that no document was produced that the original applicants transferred their deposit receipts in favour of the complainants, and copies of the booking receipts placed on record, were also not in their names, and, as such, they had no right or status to file the complaint. The District Forum was also right in coming to the conclusion, that since there was no privity of contract between the complainants and the OP, it (OP) was right in not allotting them any plot on the basis of the alleged booking receipts, which, though, later on, cancelled and the amounts forfeited. The District Forum was also right in coming to the conclusion, that the OP was neither deficient in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and same is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
