JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:

“I. Allow the instant Complaint and hold the Opposite Party guilty of adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service; and

II. Direct the Opposite Party to handover the possession of plot admeasuring 400 sq. yds in Parsvnath City, Sonepat, Haryana based upon the terms already fixed between the parties alongwith compensation @ 24% p.a.; and/or

III. Direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, paid by the Complainant, alongwith an interest @ 24% from the date of payment i.e. 31.05.2006 till the amount is repaid; and

IV. Allow Rs. 10,00,000 compensation for negligence committed by the Opposite Party; and

V. Allow Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the Opposite Party due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Party; and

VI. Direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainants for litigation costs.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the original allottee, Mr. M.P.S. Tomar, booked a plot measuring 400 square yards in the future and past project of the Opposite Party, situated at Sonepat, Haryana. The original allottee also paid an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the Opposite Party towards the said plot. Subsequently, the Complainant, through an endorsement dated 31.05.2006, purchased the aforesaid plot from the original allottee, thereby stepping into the shoes of the first allottee. Thereafter, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the construction of the project was progressing well and that certain approvals from the relevant authorities were awaited before possession could be delivered to the Complainant. In 2009, the Complainant made multiple communications inquiring about the status of the project but the Opposite Party responded that the construction had been delayed due to market conditions and assured that possession would be handed over within a year. However, the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession within the promised timeline. On 09.09.2013, the Complainant again sent a letter seeking an update, but the Opposite Party did not respond. In 2015, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party’s office to inquire about possession. Instead of addressing the Complainant’s concerns, the Opposite Party suggested shifting the booking to another project. Since the Complainant had purchased the plot at the location of his choice for livelihood purposes, he requested the Opposite Party to provide a specific deadline for delivery. However, the Opposite Party gave only a vague assurance that possession would be handed over by the end of 2016. The Opposite Party has failed to hand over the possession of the plot till date. Hence, the Complainant approached this Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

3. 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 contended that the Complainant is not ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the said plot has been purchased by him from the open market and not from the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Complainant purchased the said plot for investment purpose. He further submitted no cause of action has been arisen against the Opposite Party.

4. The counsel for the Opposite Party further contended that the present complaint involves complicated questions of fact and law, which require detailed examination and cross-examination of witnesses and therefore cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure before this Commission. He further submitted that the failure to deliver possession of the plot does not fall within the juri