IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of simplicitor sale of land, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complt. Case No. 383/2015 – Anand Kumar Dwivedi Vs. M/s. Jha Associates (Reg.) & Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed at admission stage.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Appellant was approached by OP No. 2 to 5/Respondent No. 2 to 5, who are developers and dealers engaged in business of real estate representing their venture, a well-developed colony in the name and style of ‘Kadi Vihar’ with all amenities and facilities and complainant booked one plot of 65 sq. yds. for a sale consideration of Rs.11,05,000/-. Complainant made payment of full sale consideration and OP executed agreement to sell and purchase general power of attorney and receipt, but OP has not developed land for colony with basic facilities and has not executed sale deed. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for direction to provide all facilities and to execute and get sale deed registered or in the alternate to refund double of the sale consideration with damages, etc. Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed complaint at admission stage against which, this appeal has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as complainant was consumer qua OP being developer of land and as land was not developed, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint at admission stage; hence, appeal be admitted. Perusal of agreement to sell and purchase reveals that agreement was executed between OP No 5 and complainant for sale of 65 sq. yds. of land for Rs.11,05,000/-. Agreement nowhere reveals that OP No. 5 is developer and in the agreement to sell it has nowhere been mentioned that OP No. 5 will get the land developed. Merely because sale deed has not been executed in favour of the complainant by OP No. 5, who is owner of the land, complaint is not entertainable by consumer fora and it is simplicitor case of specific performance for execution of sale deed. Appellant has not placed any evidence on record to show that OP No. 5 was engaged in housing construction and in such circumstances; complainant does not fall within purview of consumer.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble apex Court in C.A. No. 4432 of 2012 – Norne Construction P. Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. in which it was observed that if a person enters into an agreement with the developer or a contractor, the nature of the transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’. This judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case as agreement does not depict that OP No. 5 was developer. He also placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, AIR 2007 (SC) 2198 which is not applicable as OP No. 5 does not fall within purview of developer of land.

6. As it is a case of simplicitor sale of land, complainant ought to have filed suit for specific performance and consumer fora had no jurisdiction to entertain complaint.

7. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine at admission stage.

8. Consequently appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.