ORDER :

MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants are husband and wife respectively. They are the members of Opposite Party No. 3 Society as per Membership Letter (Annexure C-2). The complainants booked a residential plot measuring 250 sq. yards in the project of opposite party Nos. 1 nd 2, namely, The Palm—Mullanpur (New Chandigarh) and they were accordingly allotted Plot No. 1418 in the said project. The basic sale price of the said plot was quoted as Rs. 44,75,000 and additional charges were extra. It was projected that the residential project of the opposite party had got all Government clearances and the aforesaid project would be completely developed within 2 years and possession would be delivered to the complainants immediately. The payment was required to be made as per payment plan (Annexure C-1). Vide letter dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure C-5), the complainants were asked to visit the opposite party for signing the Plot Buyers Agreement and for making payment of the remaining scheduled amount. The complainants, in all, deposited an amount of Rs. 29,08,750 with the opposite parties. It was further stated that the complainants intended to construct their house in 250 sq. yards plot in the aforesaid project near to Chandigarh and kept on waiting for these years for development of the project and delivery of possession with complete development in the area. It was further stated that the complainants have invested their hard earned money with the opposite parties but no progress has been made by the opposite parties to develop the project and deliver the possession.

2. It was further stated that vide letter dated 20.9.2017, the opposite parties invited the complainants to execute the Plot Buyer Agreement without completing the development work. It was further stated that the opposite parties instead of making complete development demanded an amount of Rs. 31,22,351 vide letter dated 19.1.2018. It was further stated that as the project has not been completed till date, the complainants telephonically contacted several times to opposite parties for refunding the amount but to no avail. Stating above facts, by way of filing this complaint, a prayer has been made by the complainants to direct opposite parties to refund the amount paid, with interest, compensation, etc.

3. It may be stated here that on 19.7.2018, at the time of issuing notice, Sh. Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary put in appearance and accepted notice of complaint on behalf of all the opposite parties including Avighana Welfare Society. However, joint reply was filed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and no reply was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3.

4. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, in their joint written statement took numerous objections like that expression of interest shown by the complainants was for speculative purposes. The plot, in question, was purchased for future gain, as such, the complainants being investors, would not fall within definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act, 1986). It was pleaded that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, as such, the same cannot be entertained by this Commission, proceedings before which are summary in nature. Only Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Territorial jurisdiction of this Commission was also challenged. It was stated that the project of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have been registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the RERA) . Jurisdiction of this Commission was further challenged, by stating that RERA being a special statute took precedence over the Act, 1986.

5. On merits, it was admitted that the plot, in question, was sold in favour of the complainants, in a project of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 known as ‘The Palm’ aforesaid. Payments made by the complainants were also not disputed. To say that t