IMPORTANT POINT
Since no license is issued by the building authority, property remained unauthorized and possession cannot be granted.

JUDGMENT

Facts of the Case

Rajesh K. Arya, Member.—This complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking refund of amount of Rs.24,00,000/- allegedly paid by him to the opposite parties, towards purchase of a plot, in their project named ‘Emerging Valley’, Landran Banur Road, District Mohali, Punjab, in resale from one Ajit Singh. It is the case of the complainant that after making payment of the aforesaid amount, neither agreement was executed nor possession of Plot No.214 was delivered to him. On the other hand, after a long period, relocation was offered to him, in May 2018, to a new plot in some other project i.e. ADAB City, Landra-Kharar Road, Mohali at much higher rate than the original rate of the plot initially purchased by the complainant. Under those circumstances, the complainant sought refund of the amount paid but to no avail. During the period intervening, a police complaint was lodged by the complainant as the opposite parties started threatening him, as a result whereof, vide mutual agreement, dated 05.07.2019, Annexure C-4 colly., he was relocated to flat no.31, Tower No.PH11, Ground Floor, Prabh Homes, Emerging Valley, Village Nagari, SAS Nagar, instead of plot aforesaid. However, despite the fact that possession of the relocated flat was committed to be delivered by 04.09.2019, yet, the opposite parties failed to do so. Hence this complaint.

2. The claim of the complainant has been contested by the opposite parties on numerous grounds, inter alia, that in the face of existence of provision to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this consumer complaint; that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary jurisdiction; that he did not fall within the definition of “consumer” as the plot in question was purchased for commercial purposes; that the complaint filed is barred by time; that the complainant was defaulter in making payment towards price of the plot in question; that this complaint is bad for mis-joinder/non-joinder of parties; that since the Registered Office of the company has not been made a party to this complaint as such the same is liable to be dismissed on this count; that privity of contract is with the company i.e. opposite party no.1 only; that the complainant had paid only Rs.12.50 lacs and not the amount as claimed by him in his complaint.

3. On merits, purchase of the plot in resale; non delivery of possession thereof; relocation offered in respect of the flat aforesaid; execution of settlement agreement; non delivery of possession thereof also, to the complainant has not been disputed. Remaining averments have been denied being wrong. Prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant filed rejoinder wherein he reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and controverted those of the written reply filed by the opposite parties.

5. Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.4 as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.12.2020.

6. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.

7. Since, on the date of arguments, none put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3, as such, we have heard Counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the material available on record, including written arguments filed by the complainant, very carefully.

8. First of all, coming to the objection raised with regard to jurisdiction of this Commission in the face of provision to settle the dispute through Arbitration, this complaint is not maintainable, it may be stated here that though we did not find any such document on record, wherein any mention regarding arbitration has been made, still we want to mention here that this issue has already been dealt with by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein, vide order date