ORDER

The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:—

“This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant an employee of National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC entered into a contract with OP for booking flat in ‘Paramount Emotions* GH-05A, Sector-1, Greater Noida, (UP). A Memorandum of Understanding (Mo) was signed on 20.09.2010 An amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited by the complainant and Flat No.‘Eassy-701’ was allotted. The allotment was made on 15.11.2011. The total cost of the said flat was Rs.21,22,800/-.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 18.03.2014, whereby it held as follows:—

“It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the OP that present complaint is not maintainable as the subject matter of this case is beyond the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum. The relief which has been sought in this complaint is in respect of Flat No. ‘HARDY 301’of which the total cost is Rs.32,00,000/-. As per the main relief claim the complainant is seeking the transfer of the said flat in the name of Smt. Mansi Gupta. Thus the subject matter of this complaint regarding which relief of the transfer is sought is beyond the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum. We are inclined to accept the contention of the Ld. Counsel for OP that this Forum has no Pecuniary Jurisdiction in respect of the relief claimed. The second plea which has been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the OP is with regard to applicability of the Act. As per admission of the complainant this flat has been sold out by her to one Smt. Mansi Gupta. This has been argued by the OP wherein property is being purchased for making any commercial transaction and not for enjoyment of the person who has booked it then in that case it shall be hit by the definition of Consumer U/s 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is for the complainant to prove so as to how she can take the benefit of the definition of Consumer U/s 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and fall within the definition of the Consumer when she has transferred the flat in question to Smt. Mansi Gupta even when she has not paid the 10% the basic cost of this flat. The transferring of her right to Smt. Mansi Gupta left no privity of contract with the OP or rights if any available to complainant stand transferred to Smt. Manis Gupta.

The Counsel for the OP argued that as per the MoU which has been signed between the OP and the group of the NTPC employees and their family under the Flexi Plan at the time of booking 10% of the basic sale price was to be paid and within 45 days from the booking 30% of the total cost has to be paid.

As has been admitted by both the parties that the total cost of the flat was Rs. 32,47,700/- the 10% of this will come to Rs.3,24,700/-. As per the detail given in the Para-7 of the complaint the complainant has paid the total sum of Rs. 3,36,020/- out of this Rs.25,000/- was deposited on 06.10.2010 Rs. 2,56,020/- was deposited on 13.04.2012 and Rs. 55,000/- on 24.12.2012.

As per the allegation in the complaint this flat was booked by her on depositing Rs.25,000/- on 06.10.2010. An MoU was signed on 20.09.2010 thus the complainant was required to deposit on 06.10.2010 an amount of Rs. 3,24,770/-. If we look to the terms and condition of the MoU this was subject to the payment schedule attached and as per the plan this 10% of the booking amount was a pre-condition and thereafter within 45 days it was obligatory on the part of the allottee to have deposit the 30% of the total cost of the flat. As per her own allegation in the complaint this was never complied with by the complainant. She opted out by transferring this flat to Smt. Mansi Gupta. It has been argued on behalf of the OP that such transfers are not permissible as per the MoU signed between the NTPC (complainant) and the OP. Much emphasis has been laid on behalf of the complainant that Clause-9 of the note at Page