IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Plot Buyers Agreement—It is for Opposite Party to prove that Plot was purchased for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof.
(2) Complainants cannot be expected to wait for indefinite time period to get benefits of hard earned money which they have spent in order to purchase property.

ORDER

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, (President)—The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:—

(a) “To satisfy the complainant/this Commission with regard to reason because of which respondent is unable to provide the possession of the Plot to the Complainant;

(b) To refund the sale consideration of Rs. 24,64,811/- and to further to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of Rs.24,64,811/- the amount already paid by the Complainant, since 12.01.2010.

Any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit, just and proper in aforesaid facts in favour of the Complainant and against the Respondent.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that in the year 2006, the original owner namely Mr. Rajesh Gupta booked a 350 Sq. Yds. Plot with the Opposite Party in the project “TDI City” situated at Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Gupta paid a total consideration of Rs. 8,40,000/- to the Opposite Party as part consideration for the Plot. The Complainants, in the year 2009, after being assured by the Project Sales Officer/Sales Manager of the Opposite Party that the possession will be handed over to them in another two years as all the statutory permission and other formalities had been completed, decided to go ahead with the housing scheme of the Opposite Party and jointly purchased the booked Plot from Mr. Rajesh Gupta. At the time of booking the Plot in the year 2005, the location and Plot identification was not ascertained but in the year 2009 when the Complainants purchased the Plot, the location and identification of Plot was ascertained vide Plot ID B-B-12/8 and the location of the Plot was shown by the erstwhile owner in the presence of the Project Manager. Further, no Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties but several receipts containing details of the payment were issued and upon the assurance of the Opposite Party, the Complainants made all the requisite payments to the existing buyer of the plot namely Mr. Rajesh Gupta and got the aforesaid plot transferred in his name via customer ID 12099 in the records maintained by the Opposite Party. The Complainants also availed the housing loan facility from LIC Housing Finance Limited to the tune of Rs. 13,60,000/- to complete the demands of the Opposite Party.

3. The Complainants have been visiting the office of the Opposite Party for possession of the said Plot but got shocked to receive a letter dated 07.05.2016 vide which the Opposite Party had expressed its inability to deliver the allotted Plot at its project TDI city, Kundli, Sonipat and offered to take alternate unit in the same project which was not acceptable to the Complainants. The Complainants over the time had paid a sum of Rs. 24,64,811/- to the Opposite Party as and when demanded by it. However, till date the possession of the said Plot has not been handed over to the Complainants. Thus, left with no other option, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainants approached this Commission.

4. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainants are not ‘consumers’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they invested the money to earn profit, which amounts to commercial purpose. The counsel further contended that that the present complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Counsel lastly submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party as the Complainants were repeatedly offered an alternate plot which was ready for possession but the Complainants deliberately did not come forward to take possession or to sign the Buyers’ A