ORDER

1.       The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellants against Respondent as detailed above, under section 23 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 04.05.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.  45 of 2019 inter alia praying for setting aside of the order dated 04.05.2022.

2.       The Appellants were Complainants and Respondent was Opposite Party in Complaint No. 45 of 2019 before the State Commission.  Notice was  issued to the Respondent on 13.06.2022.  Appellants filed brief of Arguments/Synopsis on 28.11.2023.  Due to non appearance despite service, respondent was proceeded ex parte.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FA, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that Respondent launched the ‘Ekant Vihar Farm House Scheme’ situated at Sikar Road, Jaipur in 2006, in which facilities like farm house, swimming pool, convention centre were also included.  The complainants had participated in the auction of the plots held on 17.02.2006.  Plot No. 53 measuring 3233 sq.mtr. was allotted to the complainants, against which the complainants made payments as per details given in para 3 of the complaint. 

4.       On 09.05.2006 complainants deposited another Rs.3,79,860/- against lease deed for issue of site plan but even after lapse of 13 years, no site plan of the plot was prepared.  Local people were doing cultivation on the site and crop was found cutting there.  In this way, there was no demarcation of the said plot and no possession of the plot was given to the complainants even after writing many times to the respondent for possession. 

5.       In the year 2017 when complainant sought information from the respondents, they were asked to deposit Rs.7,44,883/-  as lease charges, Rs.1,86,220/- as urban tax and  tax thereon of Rs.1,44,321/- vide letter dated 09.10.2012 but the complainants state that they did not receive the said letter.  When complainants asked the respondents proof of service of the said letter,  respondents admitted that Rs.1,86,220/- have been wrongly added.   In this way, the complainants deposited Rs.9,31,103/- and Rs.3,42,761/- on 20.01.2017.  Complainants went to the respondent on 23.0.6.2017 and respondent told them that possession of plot cannot be given in the absence of electricity and water connection.  The complainant again requested for possession of the said plot but possession was not given.  Even the scheme of the respondent was not registered under Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority.  The respondent despite allotting the plot to the complainants and taking huge sum of money, neither gave possession or demarcated the plot nor developed other facilities.  Being aggrieved,  the Complainant preferred complaint before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 04.05.2022 dismissed the Complaint of the Complainants.  Therefore, the Complainants are before this Commission now in the present FA.

6.       Appellant(s) have challenged the Order dated 04.05.2022 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

7.       Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. On account of absence despite notice, Respondent was proceeded ex-parte.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the FA, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, and records of State Commission are summed up below.

8.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission and other relevant records.    Complainants have prayed in their Complaint directions to the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 73,58,129/- paid by them to OP in respect of Plot No. 53, Ekant Vihar Farm Home Yojna alogwith interest, compensation and litigation cost.  State Commission, vide impugned order dismissed the Complaint holding that Appellants were not consumers since they had bought the plot in auction on ‘