ORDER

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Ms. Sumati Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. Aforementioned complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party, (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to return the money paid by the complainant, amounting to Rs.9620862.40 along with interest @18% per annum, (ii) to cancel “Allottee Arrangement Agreement” dated 19.07.2012, (iii) to pay Rs.50/- lacs as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment (iv) to pay Rs.2/- lacs as cost of the litigation and (v) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper, in the facts of the case, be passed.

3. The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the builder was a company, engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. In the year 2011, the builder propagated that they had licence for development in commercial plot No. CC-001, admeasuring 618952.75 square meters, at Sector-52A & 32, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar. The builder launched a project of Super Premium/Serviced Residences in the name of “Wave City Center”. The complainant and his wife Smt. Alka Agrawal booked a residential flat, in this project on 29.03.2012 and deposited Rs.100000/-. They were allotted Unit No. 601 (area 2100.32 sq.ft.), at sixth Floor, Tower F, Block-2-B, Block name Amore. Allottee Arrangement Agreement was executed on 19.07.2012. As per schedule-1 of this agreement, payment plan was “construction linked payment plan”. Entire sale price had to be paid in 17 instalments at different stages of the constructions. Basic sale price was Rs.14872365.92, service tax was Rs.459556.11 and other charges was Rs.912540/-. As per clause-5.1 of the Arrangement, possession had to be delivered within 48 months with extended period of 6 months, from the date of execution of the Arrangement. As per statement of account as maintained by the builder, the complainant deposited Rs.100000/- on 29.03.2012, Rs.1362977/- on 08.04.2012, Rs.100000/- on 12.01.2013, Rs.603407/- on 30.01.2013, Rs.1533192/- on 23.05.2013, Rs.500000/- on 30.09.2014, Rs.200000/- on 25.05.2015, Rs.200000/- on 08.06.2015, Rs.500000/- on 02.07.2015, Rs.1000000/- on 07.08.2015, Rs.1446443/- on 15.09.2015, Rs.774843/- on 23.11.2015 and Rs.400000/- on 31.03.2016 (Total Rs.9620862/-). But as and when the complainant visited site, he found that the construction was not likely to be completed in the time schedule as given in Arrangement nor in near future, then he gave registered notice dated 23.05.2017, cancelling the Arrangement and requested to refund his money of Rs.9620862/- with interest @18% per annum. But instead of returning the amount, the builder gave a vague reply dated 06.06.2017. Then this complaint was filed on 09.07.2017.

4. The builder contested the complaint and filed its written reply on 18.09.2017, in which, material facts have not been denied. It has been stated that the complainant invested money in real estate in order to earn profit. The market in real estate has gone down then, the complainant decided to withdraw from the Arrangement and return of his money along with interest. The complainant did not disclose his other properties. The complainant is not a consumer, within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, rather an investor and the complaint was not maintainable. Alka Agrawal was first allottee under the Arrangement but she was not impleaded as the party. Under Clause-5.1 of the Arrangement, it was provided that the builder would endeavour to complete the construction within 48 months with extended period of 6 months from the date of the Arrangement, subject to force majeure conditions and timely payment of the instalments. After aforesaid period, the builder would be liable to pay delayed charges @ Rs.7.50/- per sq. ft. per month on the area under Clause-5