The judgment establishes the principle that one-sided and unfair terms in a buyer's agreement constitute unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, entitling consumers to refunds and compensation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member - The complainant who is a citizen of Canada and a senior citizen returned to India in the year 2007 after taking retirement so that he could settle down in India with his aged parents. The complainant initially booked four residential flats with the opposite party out of which, one flat each was booked in the project, namely, Parsvnath Palacia and Parsvnath King City whereas the remaining two flats were booked in another project, Parsvnath Privilege. The contention of the complainant is that in fact he wanted to book only one residential flat but was persuaded by the employees of the builder to book four flats instead of one flat and divide the amount available with him into four bookings. All the four bookings were made on 4.7.2007. On 27.7.2007, the bookings in Parsvnath Palacia and Parsvnath King City were converted into one booking in yet another project, namely Parsvnath Exotica in Ghaziabad. Thereafter, on 1.1.2010 both the bookings which the complainant had made in the project, Parsvnath Privilege were converted into one booking by cancelling one of the bookings. Initially, Flat No.1501 in Tower T-20 and Flat No.1502 in Tower T-1 had been allotted to him. On 1.1.2010, the money which he had paid against Flat No.1501 in Tower T-20 was transferred to the booking of Flat No.1502 in Tower T-1. Flat No.1502 in Tower T-1 remained allotted to the complainant at the time those two bookings were converted into one booking in the project Parsvnath Privilege.

2. The complainant was allotted Flat No.1204 in Tower D-1 in Parsvnath Exotica, when the bookings in Parsvnath Palacia and Parsvnath King City were converted into one Parsvnath Exotica on 27.7.2007.

3. The complainant had executed a Flat Buyers Agreement dated 21.8.2007 with the opposite party in respect of Flat No.1502 in Tower T-1. As per Clause 10(a) of the said agreement, the construction of the flat was likely to be completed in a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular block in which the flat was located. The construction of Tower T-1 according to the learned counsel for the opposite party has not yet started. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the allotted apartment has not been offered to him despite he having paid Rs.5814271/- to the opposite party towards price of the said flat. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission by way of C.C. No.1503 of 2016 seeking refund of the said amount with compensation etc.

4. The complainant had also executed an agreement with the opposite party on 11.9.2007 in respect of Flat No.803 in Tower D-4 of the project Parsvnath Exotica in Ghaziabad. As per Clause 10(a) of the said agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months of the commencement of the particular block in which the flat was located. Since the possession of the allotted flat has not been offered to him, the complainant is before this Commission by way of C.C. No.581 of 2017, seeking refund of the amount paid to the opposite party along with compensation etc.

5. The complaints have been resisted by the opposite party which has taken a preliminary objection that the complainant being an investor, he is not a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act. On merits, C.C. No.1503 of 2016 pertaining to allotment of a residential flat in Parsvnath Privilege is stated to have been contested on the grounds which this Commission has already rejected in CC No.232 of 2014 - Puneet Malhotra Vs. Parsvanath Developers Ltd. and connected matter decided on 29.1.2015. Since no additional ground has been urged before me, I need not revisit the grounds which this Commission has already rejected in Puneet Malhotra (supra).

6. The decision of this Commission in Puneet Malhotra (supra) to the extent is relevant, reads as under:

4. The complaints have been resisted by the respondent company on the ground that the complainants are seeking refund with exorbitant interest.