IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 04.08.2014 Date of hearing: 03.08.2022 Date of Decision: 15.11.2022 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 772/2014 IN THE MATTER OF

1. MS. NEERU VIG, W/o Mr. B. M. Vig, R/o SF-65, Ansal Vyapar Kendra, Sushant Lok-1, Block-C, Gurgaon (Haryana).

2. MRS. KAMLESH TALUJA, W/o Mr. Anil Taluja, R/o C-8/8205, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

3. M/S EVER RICH BUILDCON PVT. LTD., Through Director: Mr. Anoop Taneja & Ashish Vig, H-68, Bali Nagar, New Delhi.

ALSO AT;

SF-65, Third Floor, Vyapaar Kendra, Sushant Lok-I, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana).

(Through: M/s Mittal & Mittal Co.)

…Appellants VERSUS MR. MAYUR MANSHARAMANI, R/O- C-2B, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.

… Respondent 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 facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:

“Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he entered into an agreement to purchase third floor of property no C-5A/40 with Mrs. Neeru Vig and Mrs. Kamlesh Taluja. The negotiation for the property was done through Anoop Taluja and Ashish Vig of Ever Rich Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. He paid Rs.5,50,000/- in cash as earnest money and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of two cheques dated 13.10.11 in favour of both the owners. Thereafter he applied for a housing loan to ICICI Bank vide application no.777- 8646944/1. The loan facility was denied to him on the ground of legal flaws in the said property because as per clause 5 of the allotment letter, alteration/addition in the property required prior approval of the DDA but there was no approval from the DDA in this case. allotted LIG flat having one unit. Secondly DDA The property was not allotted as a plot where building sanction plan was required to construct on the said plot. However when he informed Mr. Anoop Taluja he advised him to apply to some other bank for loan. Thereafter he applied to Axis Bank for housing loan vide application no.4035599845. Again loan was denied to him on the ground of legal flaws in the property, the covered area being more than the sanctioned area which was 100% covered area of the plot and balcony projections were protruding beyond the plot limit from front and rear side. After this he informed Ashish Vig well within time about the problem and requested them to return his advance money. Thereafter the respondents stopped taking his calls and even stopped responding to his messages due to this reason he was constrained to instruct his banker to stop the payment of both the cheques. On 16.11.11 through an SMS he requested the respondent to return his money but there was no response. Hence he approached this forum a simple relief that respondents be directed to return the compensation money received by them with interest, of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- as opportunity cost of money there being increase in property prices.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 05.05.2014, whereby it held as under:

“Preliminary objections were raised that complainant was not a consumer and this was not a consumer complaint and district forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. There is no force in this contention because there are catena of judgements that while entering into an agreement for the purpose of sale and purchase of immovable property services of the owner of the property are availed by the purchaser through agreement to sell the property and owner is supposed to provide certain services to the purchaser for consideration and if there is any deficiency in providing these services complainant can always approach the consumer forum. Daily the complaints are being filed by the consumers against construction companies who enter into agreement to sell the property to the individual flat owners. If they fail to deliver the pos