IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 26.07.2018 Date of hearing: 12.07.2022 Date of Decision: 26.09.2022 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 944/2018 IN THE MATTER OF

1. MR. RAJEEV KUMAR SHARMA S/O MR. BRAHAM SINGH SHARMA, 2. MS. REENU SHARMA W/O MR. RAJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, BOTH AT: R/O 4249, STREET BAHUJI, PAHARI DHIRAJ, SADAR BAZAR, DELHI – 110006.

(Through: Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate)

…Complainants VERSUS

1. PAREENA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, FLAT NO.2, PALM APARTMENT, PLOT NO. 13-B, SECTOR-6, DWARKA, NEW DELHI – 110075.

ALSO AT:

C-7A, SECOND FLOOR, OMAXE CITY CENTRE MALL, SOHNA ROAD, GURGAON, HARYANA – 122018.

2. SEHGAL ASSOCIATES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. RAGHAV SEHGAL, AT 102, VIPUL GREENS, SOHNA ROAD, SECTOR-48, GURGAON, HARYANA – 122001. (Through: Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Opposite Party 1)

…Opposite Parties CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the Parties.

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

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been originally filed before District Commission, South West District. However, when the complaint was at the stage of final arguments, the same was returned by the District Commission to be dealt with by the State Commission for want of Pecuniary Jurisdiction vide order dated 11.07.2018. The Complainants alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties have prayed the following reliefs:

a) direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.14,75,992/-

alongwith interest;

b) direct the respondents to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for the mental tension, physical loss and harassment caused to the complainants due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents;

c) pass any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper passed in favour of the complainants and against the respondents.

2. Brief facts for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainants booked a flat, in Project of Opposite Party No.1 namely “MI Casa” situated at Sector-68, Gurgaon for a total price of Rs.14,75,992/-. Thereafter, the Complainants were allotted Unit no. 1704 in Tower-5. An apartment Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties in the year 2015.

3. The Complainants had paid a total sum of Rs.14,75,992/- as demanded by the Opposite Party No. 1 till date 28.05.2015. However, the Opposite Party No.1 did not start the excavation/digging work in the said project even after 2 years from the date of booking of the said unit.

4. The Complainants sent letter dated 13.04.2016 to the Opposite Party No. 1 vide which they asked for refund of the amount already paid by them, but the Opposite Party No.1 failed to give appropriate response to the said letter. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, Complainants served legal notice dated 16.08.2016 and requested Opposite Party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.14,75,992/- paid by the Complainants towards the purchase of apartment along with interest but of no avail.

5. The Opposite Party No.1 has contested the present case and raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 also contended that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the present complaint is barred by limitation period. It is further submitted that Complainants are not a „consumer‟ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Complainants have invested the money to earn profits, which amounts to commercial purpose. It is also alleged by the counsel for Opposite Party No.1 that complaint involves complicated questions of fact and law, hence deserves to be tried by a Civil Court. The counsel for the Opposite Party No.1lastly submitted that the Complainants hav