DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, (President) and Rajan Sharma, (Judicial Member)
Mr. Ravi Saxena —Complainant
versus
Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.404 of 2012
Decided on 31.3.2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Recurrent cause of action – Complainant has a recurrent cause of action till the possession of the plot is not handed over to him.
(2) Commercial Purpose – Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint.

Headnote:

(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17, Section 24A – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Plot – “Recurrent cause of action” Limitation for filing compliant when plot is not handed over – Whether this complaint is within the period of limitation as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of 2 years from the date on which cause of action has arisen – It is clear that the possession of the said plot in question is still not handed over by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. Applying the above law, it is clear that the complainant has a recurrent cause of action till the possession of the plot is not handed over to him. Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant is within the period of limitation. [Para 11]

(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17, Section 24A – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Plot – Jurisdiction of Commission – In a case where value of goods along with the compensation is more than twenty lakhs and less than One Crore – Whether commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint – Commission shall have the pecuniary jurisdiction in cases where value of goods along with the compensation is more than twenty lakhs and less than One Crore. Moreover, Clause 17(2) of the Act provides the extent of territorial jurisdiction, wherein it has been provided that the state commission shall have the jurisdiction to entertain cases where opposite party at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or the cause of action arose – The facts of the present case reflect that the value of the plot and the compensation prayed for by the complainant is beyond Rs. 20 Lakhs but does not exceed Rs. 1 Crore, accordingly, this commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint – Since the registered office falls within the territory of Delhi, this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case – Thus, Commission has territorial and pecuniary

jurisdiction. [Para 14].

(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17, Section 24A – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Plot – Whether Complainant Falls in The Category of ‘Consumer’ Under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Commercial Purpose – Allegation of – It is for the Opposite Party to prove that the plot purchased was for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof and a mere bald statement is not sufficient to raise adverse inference against the Complainant – In the present case, the Opposite Parties have merely made a statement that the Complainant purchased the said plot for commercial purpose and on perusal of the record before Commission, also, Commissions fails to find any material which shows that the Complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by sale of such flats. Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint. [Paras 18, 19]

(iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17, Section 24A – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Plot – Whether the Opposite Parties are actually deficient in providing its services to the Complainant or not – It is clear that if the possession in a builder buyer agreement is delivered beyond 42 months or 48 months, then there is deficiency of service on the part of builder. In the present case, we find that the possession of the plot in question was not yet delivered by the opposite party and a period of around 11 years (approx.) had passed from the date of booking i.e. 07.06.2006. Therefore, the deficiency on the part of opposite party No. 1 stands proved, hence, the opposite party no. 1 is guilty of deficiency in providing its services to the complainant. [Para 22].

(v) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17, Section 24A – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Plot – Refund – whether refund can be awarded in the present case as the complainant had prayed for possession of the plot – Opposite Party No. 1 failed to hand over the possession of the said plot even after receiving the amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- – In these circumstances, it appears that the Opposite Party No. 1 is not in a position to handover the plot in question to the complainant. Therefore, as per the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that it is justified to refund the amount already paid by the complainant – Thus, direct the Opposite Party no. 1 to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant i.e. Rs. 5,20,000/- along with interest. [Para 25].

Result: Complaint Allowed.