DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 67/2014
Vishnu Bhagwan Sharma,
S/o Sh. O.P. Sharma,
H. No. 76, Mahipal Pur,
New Delhi – 110037. ….Complainant
Versus
Director,
M/s Vigneshwara Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office
D-16/C, Bhagwani House,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi – 110016.
Corporate office
Darson Court, GF-14,
Augusta Point, Golf Road,
Gurgaon – 122002. ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 20.02.14 Date of Order : 02.02.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
As per the case of the complainant, he had invested and paid Rs. 18,75,000/- for the allotment of 250 sq ft unit in the proposed project, namely, Information Technology Park (IT Park) on 10 acres of land allotted to the OP at Industrial Model Township (IMT), Manesar, Gurgaon and entered into an agreement known as “Developer-Anchor Option Agreement-Assured Return Plan”. As per paras 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the agreement, the OP had agreed to make the payment of Rs. 75/- per sq. ft. per month of the super area of 250 sq. ft. of the booked unit as committed return for 60 months during construction and as per Para 2.3, this was the interest on investment. OP paid the committed assured return from the signing of the agreement until the month of March 2013 and thereafter stopped the same. OP did not make the payment. The complainant sent a notice to the OP to return the principal amount of Rs. 18,75,000/- together with interest @ 18% accrued since 1st April, 2013 but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to make payment of Rs. 18,75,000/- towards refund of the principal amount, to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount w.e.f. 1st April 2013 till the actual date of settlement of Principal Amount, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of petition and to pay Rs. 1 Lakh towards the physical strain and mental agony caused to the complainant.
OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 7.8.2014 passed by our Predecessors.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in exparte evidence and written arguments. We have heard the Counsel for the Complainant and have also carefully perused the file.
We have carefully gone through the documents. It becomes crystal clear that the complainant had invested the said amount of Rs. 18,75,000/- for earning profit and not for taking the site for the purpose of earning his livelihood or for his residence. Therefore, complainant had booked the said unit for non-residential purpose and that too for not earning his livelihood. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 02.02.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 67/14
2.2.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
