Delhi

StateCommission

A/188/2015

SHRI MUKESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE - Opp.Party(s)

03 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

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

 

Date of Decision :03.09.2015

First Appeal No.188/15

Shri Mukesh kumar,

S/o Shri Mangat Ram,

Resident of E-28, Second Floor,

Sector-1, Rohini,

Delhi-110085.

……Appellant

Versus

TDI Infrastructure,

G-7, Ground Floor,

Cannaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001.

 

.…Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1. This is an appeal under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, ‘the Act’) against order dated 13.1.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI (New Delhi) (in short, “the District Forum”) in  Complaint Case No. 26/2015.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:

The appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act alleging therein that he had purchased a residential unit from the respondent bearing flat No.702, Tower J-4, TDI Kingsberry, Kundli, District Sonepat.  Alongwith consideration amount he was also forced to purchase club membership on 2.2.12 worth Rs.50,000/-.  On 4.10.13, the appellant had sold the property to Sh. Banwari Lal and thereafter requested the respondent many times for refund of the membership charges the respondent did not return the same. The appellant had prayed for refund of club membership charges.

3.         The Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint in liminie on 13.1.2015 on the ground that once the flat was sold the complainant ceases to be a ‘consumer’.
4.         Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
5.         Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of the District Forum is illegal.  It is contended that till the time the club membership charges are retained by the respondent, the appellant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for appellant.
7.         The reasoning given by the District forum in dismissing the complaint at admission stage is as under:-

        “The complaint is regarding club membership provided to them by OP.  The premises were resold by complainant to third party.  Subsequently, complainant requested for refund of club membership.  The complainant has not placed any agreement with OP regarding refund of club membership.  Once the flat in question has been resold by complainant, he ceases to be consumer and complaint is dismissed with liberty to file complaint in appropriate forum.”

8.         It is not a case of the complainant that there was a separate agreement for club membership. It is not the case of appellant that one can have a membership of the flat without there being allotment of flat. The club membership was incidental to the purchase of the flat.  Once the flat was sold, the appellant/complainant ceased to be a ‘consumer’ under section 2 (i) (d) of the Act.  No illegality is seen in the impugned order.

 

9. The appeal stands dismissed.  The appellant is at liberty to avail other remedies as are available to him in accordance with law.
10. A copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)