Present: Ms. Ayushi Kapoor, proxy counsel for the complainants on VC.

Mr. Dhruv Sharma, counsel for the OP on VC.

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

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint was returned by the District Commission vide order dated 26.09.2022 on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, filed by the Complainants before this Commission. The Complainants filed an amended complaint before the District Commission and the same was accepted by it. The Complainants have sought the following reliefs against the Opposite Party in the amended complaint:

a. Summon the opposite party,

b. The O.P. may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 12,61,500/-deposited by the complainants with the O.P. along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund/payment/realization to the complainants.

c. Opposite party be directed to withdraw the interest as illegally imposed. Grant compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to complainants for causing delay, physical, mental and monetary loss complainants have suffered due to the acts and omissions of opposite party.

d. The opposite party may also be burdened with the cost of litigation expenses.

e. Any other order/direction may also be passed in favour of the complainants and against the opposite party.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that on 27.12.2005 the Complainants booked a plot admeasuring 500 sq. yards by paying a booking amount of Rs. 7,75,000/- in the project namely TDI City of the Opposite Party at Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana. The Opposite Party also assured that it possessed all the requisite land, licenses and necessary sanctions from the competent authorities in respect of the said project. Thereafter, the Complainants made further payments of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 2,86,500/- through cheque against the demands raised by the Opposite Party. In total, the Complainants paid a sum of Rs. 12,61,500/- towards the booked plot. As per the terms and conditions of the application form, the Opposite Party was to make the allotment within six months from the date of the application. However, the Opposite Party neither allotted any plot nor handed over possession of the plot to the Complainants till date. Despite the absence of any allotment, the Opposite Party continued to raise demands and threatened to impose additional interest in case of delayed payment. The Complainants approached the Opposite Party seeking allotment of the plot but the Opposite Party failed to provide any satisfactory response. Furthermore, the Opposite Party could not have raised any demand without effecting allotment; therefore, the Complainants did not pay the illegal demand letters. The Complainants were shocked to receive a demand letter seeking interest charges amounting to Rs. 15,59,697/- despite the fact that no allotment had been made. The Complainants also issued a legal notice dated 18.04.2011 seeking possession of the plot; however, the same was of no avail.

3. The Opposite Party contested the present matter and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present complaint. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainants are not a „consumer‟ under the Consumer Protection Act, as the Complainants are allegedly a speculator who invested money for commercial purposes with the intention of earning profit. He further submitted that the present complaint is barred by limitation, as the plot was allegedly cancelled in the year 2006, whereas the present complaint was filed in the year 2011, beyond the statutory period of two years. He further submitted the Complainants failed to disclose any cause of action against the Opposite Party.

4. The counsel for the Opposite Party also submitted that the Complainants are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi as the Complainants alleged that no allotment was made in the present complaint but the Opposite Party h