State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajinder Singh Nagra Son Of Late Sh. ... vs Regional Office, Taneja Developers And ... on 10 January, 2012
Consumer Complaint No. 55 of 2010 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
PLOT NO. 1037, SECTOR 37-A DAKSHAN MARG, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 55 of 2010
Date of institution :2.8.2010
Date of decision :10.1.2012
1. Rajinder Singh Nagra son of Late Sh. Ujagar Singh
2. Balwinder Singh Nagra son of Late Sh. Ujagar Singh
Both residents of House No. 2116/2, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.
Complainants
Versus
1. Regional Office, Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd, SCO No. 1098-1099,
Ist Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
2. M/s TanejaDevelpers and Infrastructure Ltd., 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New
Delhi.
3. Office of Chief Town Planner, Punjab Sector 18-B, Chandigarh.
.........Respondents
Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
Hon'bleMr.JusticeS.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. R.S. Bal, Advocate
Forrespondents No. 1&2 : Sh. S.K. Monga, Advocate
For respondent No. 3 : Deleted vide order dated 25.8.2011.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that this case is covered by the judgment of this Commission dated 27.5.2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 2 of 2010 (Rajinder Singh VsTaneja Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi and another) The only difference was that Rajinder Singh (Complainant in C.C. No. 2 of 2010) had deposited the money with the respondents for the purchase of commercial plot measuring 204 Sq. Yard on Mohali-Kharar road NH 21 @ 24,500/- per square yard for the total amount of Rs. 49,98,000/-. The respondents (in C.C. No. 2 of 2010) had reduced the area from 204 Square Yard to 120 Square Yard area.
However in the present complaint, although the complainant had deposited the money for the commercial plot measuring 204 square yard but the respondents had specified in clause No. 2 (M.P. -2 Scheme) that out of 204 square yards half of the area would be covered and remaining half would be an open area. Further submits that the respondents had no right to sell the open area. Consumer Complaint No. 55 of 2010 2
The complaint of Rajinder Singh was dismissed as not maintainable as the commercial plot was taken by him which amounted to commercial purpose. Therefore whether half of the area of the commercial plot measuring 204 square yard was open and half was covered or whether the area of commercial plot measuring 204 square yards was reduced to 120 square yard, does not make much difference when the fact remains that the transaction between the parties related to a commercial plot which amounted to commercial purpose.
Therefore this case is also covered by the judgment of this Commission dated 27.5.2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 2 of 2010 (Rajinder Singh VsTaneja Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi and another). That judgment will also be a part of this judgment.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the judgment dated 27.5.2011 passed in C.C. No. 2 of 2010, this complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
January 10, 2012. (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Rupinder MEMBER