IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 26.04.2018 Date of hearing: 01.02.2023 Date of Decision: 11.05.2023 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 516/2018 IN THE MATTER OF

1. MS. LALITA DEVI GOYAL, W/o Mr. Radha Kishan Goyal, R/o- Flat No. 5, Bhagirathi Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

2. MR. SUNIL GOYAL, S/o Mr. Devki Nandan Goyal, 3. MR. SHYAM BIHARI GUPTA, Both R/o Flat No. 5, Bhagirathi Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-85.

(Through: J.K. Gupta, Advocate)

…Complainants VERSUS

1. M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD., 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Both at: 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

ALSO AT:

Parsvnath Metro Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi-32.

(Through: Rakesh Bhardwaj & T.P. Chauhan, Advocate)

…For Opposite party no. 1 & 2 CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Ms. Shitanshu, proxy counsel for Mr. Gagan Mathur, counsel for the Complainant.

Ms. Deepshikha, counsel for the Opposite Party PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainants before this Commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party No. 1-2 and has prayed the following relief:

a) “Directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to deliver the possession of the plot bearing No. B-3302, Block-B, measuring 419.73 sq. mtrs. in the Parasvnath City, Sonepat, Haryana;

b) Award interest @24% p.a. ; c) Award cost of the litigation;

d) Direct to pay the damages for mental agony to the tune of Rs.20 lacs to the Complainant and performa Respondents;

e) In the alternate if the Respondent No. 1 and 2 failed to deliver the possession of the said plot then the Hon’ble Commission may please be directed the Respondent No.1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.34,82,625/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 30.07.2011 till the realization;

f) Any other further order/relief may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Complainant and against the Respondent No.1 and 2.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainants booked a plot bearing No. B-3302, Block-B, measuring 419.73 sq. yards situated in Parasvnath City, Sonepat, Haryana for a sale price of Rs.26,35,500/-. Complainants paid Rs.9,27,675/- towards the basic cost and Rs.67,150/- towards the external development charges to the Opposite Party No.1&2. A plot buyer agreement dated 15.09.2011 was executed between Complainants and Opposite Party No.1-2.

3. The Complainants had paid a sum of Rs.34,82,625/- as demanded by the Opposite Party No.1&2. Further, as per the payment plan, the remaining 5% amount was to be made by the Complainants at the time of handing over of possession. However, till date neither the physical possession of the plot has been handed over to the Complainants nor there was any development in the said area till 30.08.2017. The Complainants served legal notice dated 30.08.2017 and requested Opposite Party No.1&2 to handover the possession of the said plot but was of no avail. Thus, left with no other option, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainants approached this Commission.

4. The Opposite Party No.1&2 has contested the present case and has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainants are not a „consumer‟ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they invested the money to earn profit, which amounts to commercial purpose. He further submitted that the Complainants have no cause of action to file the present complaint. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1&2prayed that the complaint should