NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Anubhab Construction – Complainant
versus
City Star Ganguly Projects LLP – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.422 of 2019
Decided on 19.5.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat/Plot – Delayed Possession – “Commercial Purpose” – Maintainability of Complaint – On facts, it is fully established that the complainant is a commercial entity engaged in the business of purchase of land and selling the plots and flats. The Development Agreement dated 16.01.2013 was executed for development and construction of the land of the complainant in which the complainant has 36% share of the built up area (total 48 flats) was falling in the share of the complainant. In such circumstances, it is fully proved that the complainant has availed the services of opposite party for “commercial purpose” – On facts, the complainant cannot be termed as a “consumer” and the complaint is not maintainable, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to approach appropriate forum for required relief. [Paras 4 to 14].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Chaudhury, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Rana Mukherji, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Parth Sil, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Anubhab Construction (a Partnership Firm, registered Indian Partnership Act, 1932) has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of the flats and car parking spaces as allocated to its share under Development Agreement dated 16.01.2013 and Supplementary Agreement dated 13.01.2015, forthwith; (ii) allow the complainant to enter the site of the project; (iii) obtain “completion certificate” of the project from competent authority; (iv) pay Rs.50000/-, per month per flat, falling in the share of the complainant, as delayed compensation from 19.11.2017 till the date of actual possession the flats along with car parking spaces; (v) pay Rs.one crore, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (vi) pay Rs.200000/-, as costs of litigation; and (vii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The complainant stated that City Star Ganguly Projects LLP (the opposite party) was a Limited Liability Partnership Firm, registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and engaged in the business of development and construction of multi-storey buildings. Amit Ganguly, the partner of the opposite party used to persuade the owners of the land, for development and construction of multi-storey buildings and after entering into development agreement, used to adopt all tactics to grab the land. Amit Ganguly had much clout over the local administration and strong political support. The complainant was owner of the land, admeasuring 82 cottahs 5 chittacks 33 sq.ft. (143 decimals) at Mouza Barhans Fartabad. Amit Ganguly persuaded the complainant for construction of multi-story building over the said land. The complainant entered into Development Agreement with City Star Griha Udyog Private Limited & Ganguly Home Search Private Limited dated 13.11.2011, on principal to principal basis for construction of multi-story building over the said land, who later on authorised/transferred development work to City Star Ganguly Projects LLP through resolution dated 15.11.2012. Then the complainant entered into Development Agreement with the opposite party dated 16.01.2013, on principal to principal basis for construction of multi-story building over the said land. Under the development agreement, 36% of super built-up area including car parking space, common areas and facilities including equivalent proportionate undivided share in the ultimate roof and underneath of the building. In addition to 36% share in super built up area, the opposite party had to pay Rs.3/- crores, out of which Rs.1.5 crore was interest free refundable advance and Rs.1.5 crore shall be adjusted at the time of delivery of possession over the complainant’s share. Article-VII of the development agreement provides that 48 months period from the date of obtaining vacant possession of the land, for completion of the project and handing over possession with grace period of six months. The complainant also executed a deed of General Power of Attorney dated 16.01.2013, authorising Amit Ganguly to exercise all its right to carry out the construction of multi-story building over the said land. The opposite party got Layout Plan No.1254/CB/30/54 dated 19.11.2013, sanctioned from the competent authority for construction of lower ground plus upper ground plus nine storied and lower ground plus upper ground plus fifteen storied residential building, on the basis of above deeds and started construction. Thereafter, a Supplementary Agreement dated 13.01.2015 was executed between the parties, by which actual flats/car parking spaces falling in their shares were allocated and the details were mentioned in Second Schedule. After execution of supplementary agreement, the opposite party started
Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies Private Limited and another
Bunga Daniel Babu vs. M/s. Sri Vasudeva Construction
Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers and Ors.
Purchase designation as 'consumer' hinges on intent of use; ownership for profit does not automatically exclude consumer protection.
(1) Consumer Protection Act - Complainant has chosen his remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, his complaint before this Commission is perfectly maintainable and there is no embargo in proceeding....
1) Keeping in view the Judgment passed by this Commission in Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. vs. Amit Puri [II (2015) CPJ 568 NC], wherein it was laid down that after the promised date of delivery, it is ....
(1) Civil court - the case of the complainants is falling under ‘housing category’ and does not involves any complication question of facts, which can easily be decided by this commission and the mat....
Owing of House – The desire of a person to own a house of his own is sacred and sacrosanct. It was to satisfy the said desire of the complainant that he had parted with such a huge amount, raising pa....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.