Santokh Singh Vs Vatika Limited (CC No.119 of 2016)
Present Shri M.G.Kamath, Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
Heard on the point of admissibility of complaint.
The complainant has alleged that he was looking for three plots of 500 sq. yards each (one for him and two for his brothers). On the advice of OP-1 & OP-3 the complainant applied for plots of 240 sq. yds each in the Vatika Infotech City Scheme at Jaipur and paid Rs.2,25,000/- in cash and Rs.2,77,827/- towards each plot and the receipts were issued by the opposite party in favour of complainant against the said plots. The complainant has further alleged that complainant was issued allotment letter dated 06.01.2006 wherein he was allotted plot No.32, North Avenue-B, Townsend Park in the said project. The complainant has also applied for allotment of plot and he was allotted Plot No.34 regarding which he has filed a Consumer Complaint No.120 of 2016 before this Forum. Similarly, he has also applied for allotment of plot and he was allotted Plot No.30 regarding which he has also filed Consumer Complaint No.121 of 2016. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and sought refund of the amount deposited by him.
2 It is also pertinent to mention here that complainant had already filed two more complaint before this Forum regarding Plot No.29 and 31 vide Consumer Complaint No.111 of 2016 and 112 instituted on 15.02.2016 respectively before this Forum.
3 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the contents of the complaint and the documents placed on file it is evident that the complainant has applied for five plots and thus, it seems that the complainant had booked five plots as an investor to make profit by re-sale and thus, the complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer and as such he cannot maintain the consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act as held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Sanjay Bansal Vs Vipul Ltd & Ano 2013(4) CPJ (NC) 221, Mrs. Savi Gupta v Omaxe Azorim Developers Pvt. Ltd in Consumer Complaint No.208 of 2012, decided on 01.10.2012 as well as Consumer Case No.307 to 309 of 2012, titled M/s Moran Plantation Pvt. Ltd and Ors v M/s Ambience Private Ltd decided on 02.09.2013.
In this regard reliance can also be placed on Ved Kumari and another Vs Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd and another 2014(2) C.P.J.(N.C.) 146 wherein it was held
“That complainants were investors and they are not consumers as they have booked several plots.”
Similarly, reliance can be placed on Chilkuri Adarsh v ESS ESS VEE Constructions III (2012) CPJ 315 wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held
“that even when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises; it amounts to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose.”
Similarly, reliance can be placed on Jagmohan Chabra and another v DLF Universal Ltd, IV (2007) CPJ 199 and the said judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex court in Civil Appeal No.6030-6031 of 2008 vide order dated 29.09.2008.
4 Therefore, since the complainant has booked five plots and as such the complainant was not “consumer” rather he was investor and when the complainant does not fall under the definition of “consumer” u/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint itself is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Member Member President,
DCDRF, GGN
29.02.2016
