SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. Parasramka Holsings Pvt. Ltd. —Complainant
versus
M/s. Ambience Private Ltd. —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1452 of 2016
Decided on 21.9.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. N.P. Singh, Advocate with Mr. Amrit Singh, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant who is not a consumer has no locus standi to file consumer complaint.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Real estate—Booking of Apartment—Present complaint has originated from original builder-buyer agreement between parties which was subject matter of dispute between parties in another consumer complaint—Complainant is not a consumer and has no locus standi to file consumer complaint—Consumer complaint rejected. (Paras 5, 7 and 8)

       Result: Complaint dismissed.

       

ORDER

M/s Parasramka Holdings Pvt. Ltd. has filed the instant complaint against the opposite party M/s Ambience Pvt. Ltd. on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in relation to an apartment booked by the complainant being apartment No.602, I-Block, Caitriona relating to Island project undertaken by the opposite party.

2. It may be noted that earlier also the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite party on the allegations of deficiency in service in respect of builder-buyer agreement executed between the parties in relation to the allotment/purchase of the above-noted apartment. The said complaint being consumer complaint No.308/2012 was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 2nd September, 2013 on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer and as such it could not raise the consumer dispute. The Co-ordinate Bench, however, gave liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court to seek its remedy.

3. Being aggrieved of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 2nd September, 2013, the complainant filed SLP in the Supreme Court which was admitted and listed as an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court after some discussions between the parties it was agreed that in the event of the complainant making payment of Rs. 2,21,17,126/- the allotment of the complainant would be restored and the conveyance deed shall be executed in favour of the complainant. A supplementary agreement to the above effect was executed between the parties. Pursuant to the supplementary agreement, the complainant made the entire agreed payment and the opposite party executed the conveyance deed of the subject flat in favour of the complainant and delivered the possession to the complainant.

4. It is the case of the complainant that it has been provided with a flat having super area less than what was promised and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to pro-rata refund of the amount; there is a delay in delivery of possession as per the terms stipulated in supplementary agreement; and illegal demand of PLC over the flat in question is not payable.

5. We have heard the arguments on maintainability of the consumer complaint. From the above-narrated history of this case it is clear that this complaint has originated from the original builder-buyer agreement between the parties which was subject matter of the dispute between the parties in consumer complaint No.308/2012. In the said matter the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 2nd September, 2012 has held that the complainant had booked the subject flat for commercial purpose and, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. SLP against the said order was admittedly filed in the Supreme Court and the SLP which was admitted and the appeal was later on withdrawn by the complainant. The relevant order of Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: -

“M/s Moran Plantation Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant(s)

versus

M/s Ambiance Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent(s)

With

Civil Appeal No(s).9006 2013

Civil Appeal No(s).9157 of 2013

Order

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the appeal. Permission is granted. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.”

6. On reading of the above order, it is clear that the appeal preferred against the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission was withdrawn by the appellant, meaning thereby that the aforesaid finding has become final qua the parties to this complaint and it operates as res judicata. This Commission, only because a supplementary agreement in furtherance of the earlier builder-buyer agreement was executed, cannot sit in appeal over the order of the Co-ordinate Bench or review the same. The said judgment which has become final operates as res judicata. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant is not a consumer and




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top