JUDGMENT

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

A. Direct the Direct the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to return the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) fraudulently taken by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of receipt of the payments till realization.

And/Or

B. Direct the Respondents to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to the Complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- incurred by the complainant.

And /Or

C. To discontinue the unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Parties no. 1 to 3 in the manner as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

And /Or

D. Pass such other and further reliefs as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are as that the Complainants booked a unit bearing number A-1102 with the Opposite Parties in the project called “Park View Sanskruti,” situated in Sector 91, Gurgaon, Haryana. The Complainants also paid a booking amount of Rs. 10,00,000 towards the said unit, which was duly acknowledged by Opposite Party No. 1. Subsequently, the Complainants approached Opposite Party No. 1 for the execution of legal documents regarding the said booking, but Opposite Party No. 1 provided only false assurances. Instead of executing legal documents, the Opposite Party kept sending demand letters, which were duly paid by the Complainants out of fear of losing their hard-earned money.

After almost one year and after taking almost Rs.40,00,000 from the Complainants, an application form was executed between them in October 2013. However, at the time of execution, this application form was a blank/unfilled document without any particulars or details about the booking and payments. Thereafter, following numerous persuasions to Opposite Party No.1, an agreement was sent to the Complainants in January 2014, thereby delaying the promised possession date from 2015 to the year 2017. The Complainants also made various communications regarding the inordinate delay in completing the construction of the project, even after taking Rs.40,00,000 from them. The Opposite Party also levied Rs.8,50,000 for preferential location charges, despite various assurances that it would be adjusted. Aggrieved by the actions of the Opposite Party in making inordinate delays in completing the construction of the said project, the Complainants sent an email dated 17.01.2015 for the cancellation of the booking. However, the Complainants were shocked to receive an email dated 20.11.2013, which mentioned that Rs.31,00,000 had been deducted from the total amount paid by the Complainants.

The Complainants also sent a notice dated 18.01.2016 to Opposite Party No. 1 and a notice dated 18.02.2016 to the Opposite Party, mentioning their grievances and requesting a refund of the total amount deposited by them, but to no avail

3. The Opposite Party no. 1 has contested the present case and raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party no.1 submitted that the Complainants are not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they invested the money to earn profit, which amounts to commercial purpose. The counsel of the Opposite Party no. 1 further submitted that this commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, only courts at Gurgaon will have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. He further submitted that the complainant defaulted in making timely payments as per the payment schedule. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the co