JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:

a) Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 61,79,200/-

(Rs Sixty One Lac Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred only) out of which Rs, 32,54,281/-(Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty One only) towards principal and Rs. 29,24,919/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Nineteen only) being interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with pendent lite and future interest at the same rate or such higher rate which this Hon'ble Commission may deemed fit in the interest of Justice.

b) Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-

to the Complainant as compensation for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused by the opposite Parties.

c) That a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be allowed as litigation costs. d) Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper in favour of the complainant in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that in the year 2012, Complainant booked a unit in the project of Opposite Party no. 1 by paying an advance amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- upon which the assurance has been provided by the Opposite Party no. 1 that the unit would be handed over to him within a period of three years from the booking. Meanwhile in the year 2013, the Opposite Party no. 1 informed the Complainant that the project namely “The Peaceful Homes” has been transferred to its subsidiary company i.e. Opposite Party no. 2. Thereafter, vide Allotment letter dated 06.05.2013, a unit bearing no. B103, having super area of 2150 sq. ft. on the 10th Floor of Tower B has been allotted to the Complainant in the project ‘The Peaceful Homes’ being developed in Sector 70A, Gurgaon, Haryana. As the Opposite Parties assured the Complainant that the unit which was booked by the Complainant would be handed over to him within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction. However, when the Complainant visited the construction site in the year 2014, he found that construction of the said project was not even started by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the Complainant sent an letter dated 21.01.2015 to the Opposite Parties seeking refund of the amount already paid by the Complainant i.e. Rs. 32,54,281/-. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties inspite of refunding the said amount, illegally raised the demands from the Complainant and arbitrarily cancelled the allotment of the said unit on 29.07.2015. However, the Opposite Parties failed to refund the already paid amount to the Complainant till date. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant approached this Commission.

3. The Opposite Parties have contested the present case and raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant has made default in making timely payments to the Opposite Parties in accordance with the ‘construction linked plan’ opted by the Complainant. The Counsel further contended that the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he invested the money to earn profit for commercial purpose. The counsel for the Opposite Parties further contended that the present case involves complex and complicated question of facts and law cannot be decided by the summary jurisdiction in the Consumer Forum. Therefore, this commission does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. Pressing the aforesaid preliminary objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties prayed that the present complaint should be dismissed.

4. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Af