STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Rajan Sharma, Judicial Member
Malika Sethi – Complainant
versus
M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
through its Chairman/Managing
Director – Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.138 of 2016
Decided on 5.7.2022

IMPORTANT POINT
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 – S.17 – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Commercial Purpose - Mere allegation not sufficient – “Consumer” - The Compliant has been filed alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party - Whether Complainant Fall in the Category of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - In the present case, the Opposite Party has merely made a statement that the Complainant purchased the apartment for commercial purpose and on perusal of record before this Commission, Commission 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. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party is answered in the negative – Thus it is for the Opposite Party to prove that the flat 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. [Para 11, 12]

(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate - Whether the Complainant has any cause of action to approach this Commission - The facts reveal that the Flat Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 09.05.2008, wherein the construction of the said flat was to be completed by the Opposite Party within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular block in which flat is located. However, the construction of the said flat in question is still incomplete – Thus, it is clear that the complainant is within their right to file the present complaint as the handing over of possession is still pending and has not seen the light of the day; giving the complainant a recurrent cause of action to file the present complaint. [Paras 13 to 15]

(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Territorial Jurisdiction – Registered Office - Whether this Commission has the Territorial Jurisdiction to Adjudicate this Complaint - 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 – Thus, in the facts of the present case, facts of the present case reflect the registered office of the Opposite Party is at New Delhi, which within the territory of Delhi, this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. [Para 18]

(iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Delay of 14 years in allotment of Flat – One Sided and Unfair - False assurance - Flat Buyer agreement - As per clause 10 (a) of the Flat Buyer agreement dated 09.05.2008 entered into by both the contesting parties. It reflects that the Opposite Party was bound to complete the construction of the said flat within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular block in which flat is located. However, till date the construction of the said flat has not been completed by the opposite party - Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainant as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the complainant with respect to the time for completing the construction of the said flat and kept the hard-earned money of the complainant for about 14 years. – Thus, direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant i.e., Rs. 20,28,442.5/- along with interest – Thus, clause 10(c) of the Flat buyer Agreement dated 09.05.2008 with respect to the payment of compensation by the Opposite Party in case of delay in completing the construction of said flat unit is wholly one sided and unfair to the complainant. [Paras 20 to 26]

Result: Complaint allowed.