ORDER

Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member—These three appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Ravi Developments, assailing the Orders dated 18.06.2019 (02 nos.) and dated 12.03.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in complaints no. 163 and 164 of 2017 and no. 313 of 2014 whereby the complaints filed by the complainants were partly allowed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “builder company”) and the learned counsel for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainants’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Orders and the memoranda of appeals.

3. Since similar questions of facts and same questions of law are involved in all these three appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order, taking first appeal no. 2185 of 2019 as the lead case.

F.A. No. 2185 of 2019 (lead-case)

4. There is a delay of 92 days in filing the instant appeal.

In the interest of justice and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned.

5. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the complaint by the complainants are that the complainants booked a flat viz. flat No. 0803 on the 08th floor and in the Project ‘Gaurav Saffron’ admeasuring carpet area of 468 sq. ft. situated at Old Survey No. 418, New Survey No. 126, Hissa No. 2, Revenue Village, Navghar Taluka, Mira Road (East), District Thane, with the builder company, for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,77,320/-, as per the agreement dated 28th March 2013. Against the total sale consideration, the complainants had paid a total amount of Rs.18,21,847/- and even after payment of the said amount, no possession was given within the stipulated period i.e. on or before December 2012. The complainants stated that the builder orally informed the date of possession and intentionally left the column of handing over possession blank in the agreement. The complainants further stated that agreement was executed in March, 2013 but no possession was not handed over to the complainants till the date of filing the complaint.

6. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the builder company, the complainants filed a complaint before the State Commission.

7. The builder company resisted the complaint by filing written statement stating that the complainant had booked two flats for investment purpose, hence, he is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. It is further argued that the complainant had not made the payment of total consideration, hence, the possession could not be delivered.

8. The State Commission, vide its Order dated 18.06.2019, partly allowed the complaint and directed as under:—

(i) Complaint is partly allowed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by the Opponent to the complainants;

(ii) Opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.18,21,847/- (Rupees Eighteen Lac Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven only) with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 01/11/2011 till realisation.

(iii) Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.2,36,020/- (Rupees Two Lac Thirty Six Thousand Twenty only) and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) to the complainants within two months from the date of this order otherwise opponent shall pay interest on the said amount of Rs.3,36,020/- (i.e.Rs.2,36,020/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

9. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the State Commission, builder company has filed the instant appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the builder company has agitated the State Commission’s Order on two counts, firstly, that the complainants do not fall within the ambit of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as he had booked two flats in