ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER

1. The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short ‘the Act’) by the Complainant against Opposite parties (OPs) as detailed above, inter alia praying for:-

2. Notice was issued to OPs, giving them 45 days’ time to file written statement. Written statement was filed by OPs.

3. It is averred in the Complaint that: -

4.  The OP-1 in their written statement/reply stated that:-

5. The OP-3 in their written statement/reply while reiterating the facts of written statement of OP-1 and citing various Judgements of Hon’ble Supreme court  stated that:-

6. Complainant in her rejoinder while reiterating the facts of the complaint and denying the allegations of OPs, cited various judgement of this Commission and Hon’ble Supreme court in support of her contention stated that w.r.t. the objection taken by the OPs regarding attestation of the supporting affidavit of the Complainant, submitted that “ A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE IN AND FOR THE STATE OF NSW, AUSTRALIA, REG. No. 192503” is the duly constituted and valid authority for the attestation of documents/ Affidavits, as per the governing laws of Australia.

7. Evidence by way of an Affidavit was filed by the Complainant and OPs broadly on the lines of averments made in the complaint/Written statement. This Commission vide order dated 24/12/2019 decided that, since no written version has been filed within statutory period of 45 days by OP-2, nor anyone has appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore the matter should be proceeded ex-parte against OP-2, also the right to file written version by OP-2 stands closed.

8.  The details of the flats allotted to the Complainant:-

9.  Heard counsels of both sides. The learned counsel for the Complainant while reiterating the contentions of the complaint cited various judgements of this commission and Hon’ble Supreme court in support of his contention stated that the Complainant seeks leave to rely upon the judgement dated 19/03/2021, passed by this commission in the batch of CCs bearing No. 2089,2090,2091,2092 and 2096 of 2016 against the same OPs and related to same project, having similar facts to the present complaint. The learned counsel for OP-1 while reiterating the facts of the written statement cited Hon’ble supreme court judgements to support their contentions.

10. The contention of OPs that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction is not valid. Under Section 21 of the Act, Commission has the jurisdiction where value of goods and services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs one crore. The OPs have failed to deliver the possession of the unit to the complainant till date and therefore, the cause of action is continuing. The contention that complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the unit for commercial purpose is also rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the OPs in this regard. The plea of OPs that delay was due to force majeure circumstances is not valid as even after a gap of more than 6 years from the committed date given in the ABA, possession of flat has not been given.  There is no documentary evidence to support the contention of the Opposite Parties that the reasons pleaded by them, can be construed as ‘Force Majeure. The contention of the OP that the parties are bound by the agreement is also not acceptable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raglivan II (2019) CPJ 34 (SC) decided on 02.04.2019 held that “a term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder ......... the incorporation of one sided clause in an agreement constitute an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling flats by the builder ........., the appellant-builder cannot seek to bind the