IN THE DELHI STATE COMSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 30.08.2018 Date of hearing: 19.12.2024 Date of Decision: 10.01.2025 COMPLAINT CASE NO. – 1099/2018 IN THE MATTER OF:

CAPT. RAVI PRAKASH, S/O MR. JAL KARAN, R/O B-50, TYAGI VIHAR, BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS, NANGLOI, NEW DELHI.

(Through: Mr. Anubhav Dubey, Advocate)

…… Complainant Versus THE DIRECTORS/DEVELOPERS, M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED REGD. OFFICE AT:

6^th FLOOR, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001.

(Through: KNM Partners, Law Offices …… Opposite Party CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MR. J.P AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL) Present: Mr. Mukesh Gahlot, counsel for the complainant.

Mr. Bhavya Sareen, counsel for the OP.

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:

“(i) Direct the respondent/OP to return the amount of Rs. 6, 09, 870/- (Six Lac Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Only) of the complainant alongwith interest @24% per annum compounded quarterly, which comes to the tune of about Rs. 24,34,215/-.

ii) pass the order of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1, 50,000/- for mental harassment and agony due to the dereliction of duty and negligence of the respondent/OP in favour of the complainant.

(iii) award cost of litigation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the complainant and against the respondent/OP (iv) pass any order or further orders which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant booked a residential flat bearing no. T5-102, measuring 1310 sq. ft. on the first floor in tower no. T5, for a total consideration of Rs. 24,34,215/-, in the project Parsvnath Preston of the Opposite Party situated at Sonepat, Haryana. The Complainant duly paid the booking amount of Rs. 1,21,710/- to the Opposite Party with respect to the booking of the said flat on 07.02.2008. Thereafter, a flat buyer agreement dated 19.03.2008 was executed between the parties. As per clause 10(a) of the said agreement, the Opposite Party was to complete the construction of the said flat within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular block in which the flat is located, with a grace period of 6 months. However, the Opposite Party failed to hand over possession of the said flat within the prescribed time. Moreover, the Opposite Party also failed to raise any demand letter after August 2008 to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant decided to cancel the allotment of the said flat after waiting 10 years for possession, as the hard-earned money of the Complainant was lying with the Opposite Party and the Complainant was receiving no benefits but the Opposite Party failed to refund the amount deposited by him till date. The Complainant, over time, had paid a sum of Rs. 6,09,870/- to the Opposite Party as and when demanded. The Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 22.05.2018 to the Opposite Party seeking a refund of the amount along with interest, but to no avail. Thus, the Complainant approached this Commission alleging deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.

3. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and has raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the Complainant invested the money to earn a profit, which amounts to a commercial purpose. He further submitted that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.

4. The counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that the present complaint involves complicated questions of fact and law, which require a detailed exa