ORDER

MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDENT (OFFICIATING)

This order shall dispose of First Appeal No.980 of 2022 filed by the Opposite Party, i.e., Suncity Projects Private Limited (hereinafter referred as “the Appellant”) and First Appeal No.1024 of 2022 filed by Lt. Col. Brijesh Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred as (“the Complainant”).  Both these Appeals have arisen out of the order dated 28.10.2022 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.216 of 2021 whereby the Complaint had been allowed and the Appellant was directed to refund the deposited amount of ₹4,06,250/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. and a sum of ₹3 Lakhs towards mental agony and harassment along with litigation costs of ₹50,000/-.  The Complainant has filed the Appeal seeking enhancement of rate of interest while the Appellant has filed the Appeal challenging the impugned order on several grounds.

2.      A Review Application had also been filed by the Complainant before the State Commission for review of the order dated 28.01.2022.  However, the Review Application was dismissed.

3.      The brief facts of the case as made out by the Complainant were that he had booked a 250 sq. yards residential plot in an upcoming housing project located at Kukas, Jaipur being developed by the Appellant.  The residential plot was booked                    @ ₹6500/- per sq. yd. and he paid a sum of ₹4,06,250/- on 20.02.2013 against receipt no.0694 dated 26.02.2013 towards provisional allotment of the plot.  It is alleged by the Complainant that he was assured by the Appellant that the physical possession of the said plot would be handed over to him within two years.  However, the plot had never been handed over to him despite various communications.  Vide e-mail dated 02.09.2021, he sought refund of the paid amount along with interest.  He had also raised several contentions regarding the expenses incurred by him due to overstay in the government accommodation.  He sent a legal notice dated 09.10.2021 seeking refund of his deposited amount along with interest.  Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Appellant, the Complainant filed the Complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and sought following reliefs:

A. Declare the terms of Provisional Allotment Agreement, as unfair to the Complainant and null and void.

B. Direct the Opposite Party to refund the Principal Amount of 4,06,250/- to the Complainant along with interest of 24% from 20.02.2013.

C. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate to the Complainant, 70,648/-, incurred by them (on government accommodation), as a direct result of delayed/ no timely possession.

D. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate to the Complainant their rental costs of 5,12,000/- (being 32,000/- per month; from 01.08.2020 till 01.12.2021 i.e., 16 months), incurred by them, as a direct result of delayed/ no timely possession.

E. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate to the Complainant an amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- on account of Mental Harassment, torture and agony suffered by him and his family; on the failure of the Opposite Party to hand over possession of residential plot and further handcuff the Complainant to purchase plot elsewhere; leaving the wife of the Complainant to die without fulfilment of her final wish to have a permanent Home.

F. Award the cost of the present Complaint to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party.

G. Any other and further appropriate orders and directions as deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4.      The claim was contested by the Appellant.  They raised several issues including that the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction.  It was also contended that the Complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 since the consideration paid by him was only ₹4,06,250/- and pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission