IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of institution: 29.12.2016 Date of hearing: 22.08.2022 Date of Decision: 19.10.2022 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 1617/2016 IN THE MATTER OF MR. SUDESH JAIN, S/O MR. JHUNNI LAL JAIN, R/O 55, B. D ESTATE, MALL ROAD, TIMARPUR, NEW DELHI - 110054 (Through: Mr. Ravinder Yadav, Advocate)

…Complainant VERSUS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT :

6^TH FLOOR ARUNACHAL BULIDING

19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 CORPORATE OFFICE AT:

PARSVNATH METRO TOWER, NEAR SHAHDARA METRO STATION, SHAHDARA, DELHI (Through: KNM & Partners, Law Offices)

…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 Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:

A. Direct opposite Party to refund entire amount of Rs.

11,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of respective payment till its realization to the complainant;

B. Direct the opposite party to pay damages of Rs

10,00,000/ to Complainants on account of losses, mental agony, pain, suffering and harassment suffered due to deficiency in service and unfair and deceptive trade practice of the opposite party.

C. Impose exemplary costs upon the opposite party for the cheating, misappropriation and delay in delivering possession.

D. Award complainants Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost of this litigation, And;

E. Pass any other or further orders/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased the plot in question from Mr.

Sunil Wadhwani (original allottee) in the year 2006. Thereafter, the name of the Complainant was endorsed in the records of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party also confirmed the substitution of Complainant’s name in place of original allottee vide letter dated 05.07.2006. The plot of 400 sq. yds. was booked in the project ‘Parsvnath City’ at Sonepat, Haryana of the Opposite Party. An amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- was paid to the Opposite Party for the said plot. The Clause (c) of the Advance Registration Form clearly states that in the event the residential plot is allotted after 9 months, simple interest @ 10% per annum shall be paid to the buyer for the period delayed beyond 9 months on the amount paid by the buyer as advance till such time the allottee are allotted a residential plot or adjusted against the price of the plot to be allotted to the buyer. However, till date neither the allotment nor the possession of the said plot has been given by the Opposite Party. The Complainant sent various communications to the Opposite Party to know about the progress of the allotment of plot but no satisfactory response was given by the Opposite Party.

3. The counsel for the Complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party do not have the necessary sanction and license from Department of Town and Country Planning for the aforesaid project. The complainant sent legal notice dated 24.08.2016 to the Opposite Party seeking refund of the amount paid by him alongwith interest but was of no avail.

4. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant is not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Complainant invested the money in real estate to earn profit and the present complaint is barred by limitation according to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He further submitted that the present complaint involves complicated question of facts and law, which cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure before this commission