IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 10.11.2017 Date of hearing: 22.07.2022 Date of Decision: 26.09.2022 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 1858/2017 IN THE MATTER OF MR. GYANESHWAR SINGH PANGTEY HOUSE NO.- 136, SECTOR-23, GURGOAN- 122017, HARYANA (Through: V.K. & S Partners)

…Complainant VERSUS.

YUVRAJ INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD.

D-226, GROUND FLOOR, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI-110024.

ALSO, AT:

GROUND FLOOR, TOWER A, TAPASYA CORPORATE HEIGHTS, SECTOR 126, NOIDA-201301 (Through: Juris Global Law Firm)

…Opposite Party CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Present: None for the parties.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

JUDGMENT

1. 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:

a. Directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.

7,87,900.00/- (Seven lakhs Eighty-Seven thousand Nine hundred Ninety Only) paid by the complaint towards the sale consideration and further direct the Respondent to pay interest of @24% per annum on the aforesaid amounts from the month of April 30,2015.

b. In addition to the above, direct the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) towards mental agony, harassment and delayed possession;

c. In addition to the above, direct the Respondent to pay the legal cost including but not restricted to costs of the pleader;

d. Pass any order which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that in the year 2003, the Complainant booked an apartment with the Opposite Party in the project “Beetle Orchid” situated at Knowledge Park III, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, UP. Thereafter, the Opposite Party allotted an apartment no. A-309 in Tower-1 vide letter of acceptance dated 05.07.2013. The Opposite Party assured the complainant that the possession of the said apartment will be handed over to him within 2 years from the date of application i.e. by March 2015. The Opposite Party failed to execute the Builder Buyer agreement as stated in Clause 17 of the letter of acceptance despite various requests made by the complainant.

3. More so, the Opposite Party issued demand letters on the complainant as per Payment Plan without raising any construction. The complainant visited office of the opposite party numerous times to know about the construction of the said project but no satisfactory response was given by the builder. He further visited the site of the project in March 2015 and noticed that the construction work was still in its primary stage. Aggrieved by the delay in completing the project, the complainant cancelled the booking of the said apartment and asked for refund of amount paid by him vide email dated 30.04.2015. The request for cancelling the said flat was duly acknowledged by Mr. Firoz Mehndi, an employee of the Opposite Party. However, till date no amount has been refunded by the Opposite Party. The Complainant over the time had paid a sum of Rs. 7,87,990/- to the Opposite Party as and when demanded by it. The Complainant also sent legal notice dated 04.07.2015 to the Opposite Party seeking refund of the amount along with interest but was of no avail.

4. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and contended that the Complainant is not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Complainant invested the money to earn profit, which amounts to commercial purpose. He further submitted that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.

5. The counsel for the opposite party further submitted that the said project is registered under RERA and therefore, the present complaint cannot be adjudicated by this commission. He also submitted that the delay in the completion of the project was due to Force Majeure conditions i.e., litigations