Haryana

StateCommission

A/329/2015

BHUPENDER PARTAP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNICON REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.329 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution: 20.03.2015                         Date of Decision: 29.03.2016

 

Bhupender Pratap Singh s/o Davinder Singh Rajput, R/o D1-403 The Legend Sector 57, Legend, Gurgaon-122002.

 …..Appellant

                                      VERSUS

1.      Unicon Real Estate Private Limited, D-221, Sector 63,    Noida-201301, through its Director.

                                                …..Respondent No.1.

2.      Emaar MGF Land Limited, Emaar MGF Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sikandarpur Chowk, Sector 28, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana through its Director.

          …..Respondent No.2.

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.Bhupender Singh appellant in person.

None for the Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 has already been dispensed with vide order dated 01.10.2015.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It was alleged by the complainant that on 16.11.2011 OP allotted flat to him in the project known as Palm Garden Sector 83, Gurgaon measuring 1900 Sq. ft. He had also deposited Rs.59,95,934/-. As per credit note O.P. No.1 was to give benefit of point 0.50 % to him i.e. Rs.38,950/-. He requested O.Ps. several times to give benefit, but, to no use.

2.                OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte and only OP No.2 filed reply controverting his averments.         It was alleged that complainant claimed relief against respondent No.1 only and there was no deficiency as far as it’s part was concerned. The allegations about unfair trade practice etc. were altogether wrong. Credit note in question was not issued by it and the same was issued by Op No.1. Objections about jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Dispute Redresal Forum, Gurgaon (in short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 30.01.2015.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant/ appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      As nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 despite publication, so that was proceeded against exparte on 01.12.2015. Service upon respondent No.2 was dispensed with because no relief was claimed against the same.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Complainant vehemently argued that despite undertaking mentioned in letter dated 15.04.2011, OP No.1 did not pay aforesaid amount. From the perusal of welcome letter Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 it is clear that Op No.1 is a broker and was acting on behalf of OP No.2. He was booking flats on behalf of OP No.2 so he (complainant) is covered by the definition of consumer and entitled for the aforesaid amount. Findings of Learned District Forum are altogether wrong and be set aside.

8.      These arguments are having force. If we go through the documents available on the file it will be clear that OP No.1 got the flat booked from complainant and was acting as an agent of OP No.2. For ready reference credit note dated 15.04.2011 is reproduced as under:

                                               

From bare perusal of this document, it is clear that complainant was entitled for 0.50 % as Client Pass Back. It was in between Op No.1 and Op No.2, when he gets commission from them. For that reason right of the complainant cannot be denied. When Op No.1 was supposed to get commission from Op No.2, it was to give benefit to the complainant. So, it can be safely presumed that he was consumer qua Op No.1. To fall in the definition of consumer, it is not necessary that an amount should be paid there and then. If there is a promise to pay in future even then one can be considered as consumer. In this case, complainant paid amount qua flat, out of which OP No.1 was to get commission from Op No.2. In this way, the complainant was consumer qua Op No.1 also because he availed his services for booking of the flat. Learned District Forum wrongly came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of consumer between them. In these circumstances, impugned order dated 30.01.2015 is set aside. Complainant is also entitled for the Client Pass Back 0.50% as alleged by him. He is also granted compensation of Rs.21,000/- for mental agony, harassment etc. Complaint and appeal are allowed accordingly.

 

March 29th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

N.K