Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Dineshbhai H. Makwana —Appellant
versus
Bhushan Umeshbhai Vyas —Respondent
First Appeal Nos.860 and 861 of 2016
Decided on 20.12.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. G.J. Chuvalia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V.M. Pancholi, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
If there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders passed in the State Commission, the same cannot be interfered in the appellate jurisdiction.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – First Appeal - The complainant / appellant who is based in USA and is a US citizen filed two separate consumer complaints, alleging therein that he had booked two bungalows, bungalow No. 15 and Bungalow No. 16 with the respondent in a project namely ‘Pushpak Hills Scheme’ - When the complainant came to India, he found that the other allottees had been given possession and when the O.P’s were asked, they demanded a further sum of Rs. 15 lakhs which was paid by the complainant – However, the allotted flats were given to others and hence, separate complaints were filed – O.P resisted the complaint on various grounds – The main contention of the O.P is that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore the same is not maintainable – Heard the counsels, perused the documents and the record – On perusing the MOU, the complaints are dismissed as they are barred by limitation – Hence, the present appeals were filed – On hearing the counsels, it is held that the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction - The appeals being devoid of any merits are hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
Result: Appeals were dismissed.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant / appellant who is based in USA and is a US citizen filed two separate consumer complaints, alleging therein that he had booked two bungalows, bungalow No. 15 and Bungalow No. 16 with the respondent in a project namely ‘Pushpak Hills Scheme’. This is also his case that as and when he came to India, he found that the other allottees had been given possession and were living in their respective bungalows allotted to them by the respondent. His allegation is that when he demanded possession of the bungalows booked by him, the respondent demanded more consideration, and therefore, he was compelled to make an additional payment of Rs.15.00 lacs to him. Since the possession of the allotted bungalow was not delivered to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of two separate complaints, one in respect of bungalow No.15 and the other in respect of bungalow No.16.
2. The complaints were resisted by the respondent, who took a preliminary objection that the said complaints were barred by limitation. On merits, it was alleged that the complainant was a financer who had financed a loan of Rs.1.00 crore and that the allotment letters in respect of the bungalows were issued to him only by way of security of the amount taken as loan from him. It was also stated in the written version filed by the respondent that the bungalow in question had been allotted to their true purchaser on 15.12.2004 and possession was also given to them in the year 2005, which was very much in the knowledge of the complainant.
3. The State Commission having dismissed the consumer complaints, on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, he is before this Commission, by way of these appeals.
4. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the complainant / appellant had in fact booked three bungalows and not two bungalows. His case is that the bungalows subject matter of the consumer complaints instituted by him, were booked by him for his two sons. However, as rightly noted by the State Commission, the complainant did not even disclose the age of his sons for whom he had allegedly booked the said two bungalows. During the course of hearing, I asked the learned counsel for the complainant / appellant as to what was the age of the sons of the complainant at the time the bungalows were booked, whether they were citizen of India or USA and what were they doing at the time the bungalows were booked. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that both the sons of the complainant were grown up persons, both were US citizens and were gainfully employed in the USA at the time when the bungalows were booked. The complaint does not disclose any particular reason for the sons of the complainant to leave the business / profession / service in which they were gainfully employed in USA and settle permanently in India. The complaint does not disclose what the sons of the complainant would have done to earn their livelihood, if they were to settle in India and live in the bungalows booked by him. In the absence of such details, it would be difficult to accept the averment that the bungalows in question were booked by the complainant for settling his sons in India, when the complainant did not even file the affidavits of his sons, to prove that despite being US citizens and being gainfully employed in USA, they wanted to permanently settle in India and live in the bungalows booked by the complainant. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to accept the case of the complainant that the bungalows were booked by him for settling his sons in India. This is more so considering that as many as three bungalows were booked by him.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to an MOU dated 21.3.2004, executed between the parties which clearly shows that the complainant / appellant had advanced a loan of Rs.1.00 crore which was
