High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to supervisory oversight, not appellate review; status as 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act does not apply to commercial property purchasers.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 17th November, 2020 (hereinafter referred to the impugned order) passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC" for short).

2. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Company is in the business of development of real estate in the form of integrated township comprising of residential and commercial flats of various dimensions, residential apartments, Villas, multiplexes and malls. The respondents had got themselves registered for provisional allotment of a shop-cum-office admeasuring 750 sq.fit in TDI City, Sector 118, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab against a basic sale consideration of Rs.31,23,520/-. A complaint was filed by the respondents with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh ("SCDRC" in short) being Complaint Case No. 631 of 2019 whereby they sought refund of the amount deposited by them in respect of the said unit. The SCDRC passed the final order on 18th December, 2019 directing the petitioner to refund the entire amount deposited by the respondents along-with compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization in accordance with the Rule 17 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 (PPRA in short) as well as Rs 55,000/- as compensation on account of the mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

3. Learned counsel submitted that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against this order on 18th February, 2020. Vide order dated 28th August, 2020, the NCDRC allowed the application for stay of the order of the SCDRC, subject to the petitioner depositing the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest before the SCDRC within 10 weeks. An application was thereafter moved before the NCDRC seeking waiver of this deposit. Vide the impugned order, the waiver was disallowed also observing that in the order dated 28th August, 2020, it had been made clear that if the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period, there would be no stay.

4. It was submitted by learned counsel that the order was unjust as it had overlooked several important facts. It was submitted that the respondents had purchased a commercial property and were therefore making investment in real estate and as such were not `consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("CP Act" in short). Thus, they could not have filed any complaint before the SCDRC. Further, it was submitted that under the CP Act a complaint could not be filed beyond two years from the date when the cause of action arose and, on that score, as well, the complaint could not have been entertained by the SCDRC. Furthermore, the petitioner had offered the possession of the commercial property in light of the Partial Completion Certificate dated 15th September, 2015 issued by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, which fact was also overlooked by the SCDRC. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 14 and Supertech Limited v. Rajni Goyal, (2019) 17 SCC 681 to submit that once the completion certificate had been obtained by the builder, the liability of the builder would come to an end.

5. Learned counsel submitted that these important factors were completely overlooked by the SCDRC and the appeal filed by the petitioner was bound to succeed. However, on account of financial crunch arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic situation, the petitioner was unable to deposit a sum of Rs. 31,52,419/- with interest @ 12 per cent per