ORDER

The present case is filed under Section 21(a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the Complainant is that on 01.05.2006, he booked a three bedroom flat measuring 1855 sq. ft. in “Parsvnath Privilege” project with the Opposite Party, for a consideration of Rs.52,86,750/- and paid an advance of Rs.3,00,000/-. On 01.05.2006, he further paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. In April 2007, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that he has been allotted Flat No.T12-301. Thereafter, the Complainant deposited the amount as per following details: -

In May 2007, the Flat Buyer Agreement was executed. According to the Agreement, the construction of the flat was to be completed within 36 months. The Complainant visited the Construction site and found that the Opposite Party had stopped the construction of Tower No.12 after basement roof slab. He also found that the Opposite Party was not granted the license/sanctions from Town Planning Authorities/Municipality/Government authorities for building the residential flats in the name of “Parsvnath Privilege”. The Complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Party to know about the status of the construction but no satisfactory reply was given by the Opposite Party. On 30.08.2009, the Complainant sent written notice to the Opposite Party requesting for refund of the amount deposited by the Complainant but the Opposite Party did not reply to the same. Aggrieved by the same, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.C-300/2009 before the State Consumer, Delhi. The dispute was amicably settled by the Parties, vide settlement deed dated 17.01.2013. On 25.02.2013, the Complaint was withdrawn by the Complainant on assurance of the Opposite Party that the construction of the flat was going on and the possession of the same would be delivered to the Complainant very soon after making balance payment of the flat. On 11.04.2013, according to the terms of the settlement, the Complainant transferred an amount of Rs.27,75,744.65/- to the account of the Opposite Party. Thus, on 11.04.2013, the entire cost of the flat stood paid by the Complainant. As the Opposite Party failed to deliver the possession, the Complainant sent notice dated 06.06.2014 seeking refund of the deposited amount but the Opposite Party did not give any satisfactory reply. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed the instant Complaint with the following prayer:-

“a. Grant a sum of Rs.1,14,89,644/- (towards principal amount of Rs.56,14,482/- and interest of Rs.58, 75,162/- at the rate of 24% per annum) along with pendentlite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of actual realisation of the payment.

b. Grant sum of Rs.20 lacs towards exemplary damages detailed above in the complaint.

c. Grant cost of litigation to the complainant.

d. Any other order, relief or direction which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondent”

3. The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing reply. The Opposite Party took the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Complaint. It was contended that the Complainant was not a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he booked the flat for commercial purpose. The Opposite Party also challenged the Complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. It was contended that the Complainant had claimed exorbitant rate of interest of 24% per annum thereby inflating the claim so as to bring the Complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. It was stated that the disput