IMPORTANT POINT
Plot Buyers Agreement – Merely labelling brochure as an “investment proposal” or giving buyer option to resell plot does not by itself make the transaction commercial one.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member.—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act’) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (State Commission) Order dated 21.08.2017 in FA No. 1016/2013 which allowed the Appeal of the Complainant and set aside the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I at Hyderabad (‘District Forum’) order dated 28.03.2013 in C.C. No. 79/2012.

2. As per Registry, there is 100 days delay in filing this Revision Petition. For reasons stated in IA/5984/2018, the delay is condoned.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that he paid Rs.2,00,000 vide cheque No. 856878 dated 21.11.2006 and Rs.2,25,000 vide cheque No. 856877 dated 01.12.2006, aggregating to Rs.4,25,000, to the Opposite Parties (OPs) as per the terms of the Agreement. The OP had assured to sell and handover 1000 sq. yds. of developed plotted area after obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authorities. However, the said undertaking never materialized, as there was neither any sanctioned layout nor any development of plots on the land shown to the complainant at the time of execution of the agreement. Further, the OP failed to communicate any progress on obtaining requisite permissions from the concerned authorities. Consequently, he issued a legal notice dated 09.11.2011 seeking refund of the amount paid along with compensation and costs. The same was served on OP-2 and returned un-served on OP-1. He thus filed the a complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.11,70,000/- with interest and costs.

5. On being issued notice, OP-1 filed its written version contending that the complainant purchased the site for resale with a commercial intent, and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is also barred by limitation. While admitting that the complainant had agreed to purchase 1000 sq. yds. of land in the proposed “Ocean Prestige” project, it was contended that necessary permissions were duly obtained and the OPs and were ready and willing to execute a registered sale deed in his favour, provided he paid the balance sale consideration and bear registration expenses. It was further contended that the Complainant failed to pay the agreed consideration, that the receipts relied upon do not pertain to him, the alleged agreement is a forged and invalid document as it does not bear his signature on all pages. There is no deficiency in service by OP-1 and the complaint deserves dismissal. In the written version, OP-2 contended that the complainant invested Rs.4,25,000 for purchase of 1000 sq. yds. of plotted area in the proposed “Ocean Prestige” project. He in fact intended to recover money after collapse of the real estate boom. OP-2 merely acted as a facilitator between them, and OP-1 alone is responsible for compliance with agreement terms. OP-2 denied any liability, asserting that OP-1 is still willing to register the plot in favour of the complainant, who failed to come forward. Hence, the claim for refund does not arise. OP-2 denied any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 28.03.2013, dismissed the complaint with the following finding:—

‘5. The Points for Consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6. The complainant and the opposite parties filed his written arguments and also submitted oral arguments.

‘7. Points I & II: Perused the material on record.

Before going into the merits of the case we intend to decide whether the complainant is a consumer and whether the dispute between the complainant and opposite parties is a consumer dispute.

Ex.A1