State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.C.Sharad vs D.D.Group on 10 January, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015
Date of institution : 09.03.2015
Date of decision : 10.01.2018
S.C. Sharad S/o Sh. K.D. Sharad, Resident of 260, Onkar Nagar,
Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab. 143521.
....Complainant
Versus
1. D.D. Global Capital Ltd. (formerly known as D.D. Township Ltd.),
through its Managing Director/Directors, namely Sanjay Gambhir,
Reena Gambhir, Karan Gambhir and Kanish Raj Gambhir,
having Registered and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
2. M/s D.D. Merchant, Bankers Ltd., having Registered and
Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New
Delhi-110020.
3. D.S.P. Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. No.363, 1st Floor, Sector
32-D, Chandigarh.
4. M/s D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director,
having Registered Office and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. Original Office
Address mentioned on the receipts, however, does not exist
which is: 65/21, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005.
5. M/s D.D. Infrastructure, through its Managing Director, having
Registered and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase I, New Delhi - 110020.
6. BPTP Parkland Pride Ltd. (earlier known as New Age Town
Planners Limited and originally known as D.D. Housing Limited),
having Registered Office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught
Place, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director, Kabul
Chawla.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 2
2) Consumer Complaint No.47 of 2015
Date of institution : 09.03.2015
Date of decision : 10.01.2018
Nilima W/o Sh. S.C. Sharad S/o Sh. K.D. Sharad, Resident of 260,
Onkar Nagar, Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab-143521.
....Complainant
Versus
1. D.D. Global Capital Ltd. (formerly known as D.D. Township Ltd.),
through its Managing Director/Directors, namely Sanjay Gambhir,
Reena Gambhir, Karan Gambhir and Kanish Raj Gambhir,
having Registered and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
2. M/s D.D. Merchant, Bankers Ltd., having Registered and
Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New
Delhi-110020.
3. D.S.P. Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. No.363, 1st Floor, Sector
32-D, Chandigarh.
4. M/s D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director,
having Registered Office and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. Original Office
Address mentioned on the receipts, however, does not exist
which is: 65/21, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005.
5. M/s D.D. Infrastructure, through its Managing Director, having
Registered and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase I, New Delhi - 110020.
6. BPTP Parkland Pride Ltd. (earlier known as New Age Town
Planners Limited and originally known as D.D. Housing Limited),
having Registered Office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught
Place, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director, Kabul
Chawla.
....Opposite Parties
3) Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2015
Date of institution : 09.03.2015
Date of decision : 10.01.2018
Aniket S/o Sh. S.C. Sharad S/o Sh. K.D. Sharad, Resident of 260,
Onkar Nagar, Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab-143521.
Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 3
....Complainant
Versus
1. D.D. Global Capital Ltd. (formerly known as D.D. Township Ltd.),
through its Managing Director/Directors, namely Sanjay Gambhir,
Reena Gambhir, Karan Gambhir and Kanish Raj Gambhir,
having Registered and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
2. M/s D.D. Merchant, Bankers Ltd., having Registered and
Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New
Delhi-110020.
3. D.S.P. Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. No.363, 1st Floor, Sector
32-D, Chandigarh.
4. M/s D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director,
having Registered Office and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. Original Office
Address mentioned on the receipts, however, does not exist
which is: 65/21, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005.
5. M/s D.D. Infrastructure, through its Managing Director, having
Registered and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase I, New Delhi - 110020.
6. BPTP Parkland Pride Ltd. (earlier known as New Age Town
Planners Limited and originally known as D.D. Housing Limited),
having Registered Office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught
Place, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director, Kabul
Chawla.
....Opposite Parties
4) Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2015
Date of institution : 09.03.2015
Date of decision : 10.01.2018
Nikhil S/o Sh. S.C. Sharad S/o Sh. K.D. Sharad, Resident of 260,
Onkar Nagar, Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab-143521.
....Complainant
Versus
1. D.D. Global Capital Ltd. (formerly known as D.D. Township Ltd.),
through its Managing Director/Directors, namely Sanjay Gambhir,
Reena Gambhir, Karan Gambhir and Kanish Raj Gambhir,
Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 4
having Registered and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
2. M/s D.D. Merchant, Bankers Ltd., having Registered and
Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New
Delhi-110020.
3. D.S.P. Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. No.363, 1st Floor, Sector
32-D, Chandigarh.
4. M/s D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director,
having Registered Office and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. Original Office
Address mentioned on the receipts, however, does not exist
which is: 65/21, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005.
5. M/s D.D. Infrastructure, through its Managing Director, having
Registered and Corporate Office- F 1/9, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase I, New Delhi - 110020.
6. BPTP Parkland Pride Ltd. (earlier known as New Age Town
Planners Limited and originally known as D.D. Housing Limited),
having Registered Office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught
Place, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director, Kabul
Chawla.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaints under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
Present (in Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015):
For the complainant : Sh. S.C. Sharad, In Person.
For OPs No.1,2, 4 & 5 : Ex parte
For OP No.3 : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate
For OP No.6 : Sh. Hemant Saini, Advocate and
Sh. Birinder Singh Khehar, Advocate.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT :
This order will dispose of the above mentioned four (4) Consumer Complaints filed, under Section 17 of the Consumer Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 5 Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), as the facts and the questions of law involved in these complaints are the same. The facts of the complaints are verbatim and all the complaints have been filed by the complainants against the same opposite parties. It is relevant to mention that all the four complaints have been filed by one family, consisting of Sh. S.C. Sharad (complainant in Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015); his wife Smt. Nilima (complainant in Consumer Complaint No.47 of 2015); his son Sh. Aniket (complainant in Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2015); and his another son Sh. Nikhil (complainant in Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2015). Details of all the similar transactions, which took place between the complainants and the opposite parties, have been given in all the complaints as it is. The replies/documents of opposite parties No.3 & 6 are also verbatim in all the cases. Same documents have been produced by the parties in all the cases. As such, there is no need to discuss the facts of each case separately; as that would amount to unnecessary repetition. So, all the above noted complaints are being discussed and decided, while narrating the facts of Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015. Facts of Complaint (Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015)
2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the family of the complainants; consisting of Sh. S.C. Sharad (complainant himself); his wife Mrs. Nilima; and his son Sh. Nikhil are living jointly. The transactions with regard to the payments of amount for future upcoming projects launched by the opposite parties were joint by family members of the complainants. It was averred that the opposite Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 6 parties, by forming a Company and Companies, collected huge money from general public, including the complainants, by launching the upcoming future projects under the following names and styles, for development of township of Faridabad, Sonepat, Zirakpur and Mohali in the year 2005/2006:
i) M/s D.D. Merchants Bankers Ltd. ii) M/s D.D. Infrastructure (A Division of D.D. Industries Ltd.). iii) M/s D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. iv) D.D. Township Ltd.
Opposite parties No.1 to 5 started receiving the booking amounts from the general public, including the complainants for those proposed Townships. The complainants, along with other general public, were lured to part with their hard-earned money, by the false and fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment of material facts by the opposite parties, through their agent Sh. Ajay Goyal. In this way, they received crores of rupees, in a fraudulent and dishonest manner, since none of those proposed projects were licensed or approved by the concerned authorities. After receipt of huge amount, the opposite parties failed to start/commence any project and even the amounts paid by the complainants/general public were not refunded. It was further averred that licence for Faridabad project was received from the competent authority in the year 2010. However, the said licence, along with other properties, for which the opposite parties collected huge amount, was sold to a "Foreign Direct Investor" (FDI) for ₹230 Crores. FDI further sold the same to BPTP-opposite party No.6. Licence No.30 of 2010 Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 7 was transferred by "Director General Town and Country Planning (DGTCP), Haryana" on the undertaking given by opposite party No.6 on 20.06.2011; which was never fulfilled. As per the said undertaking, the refund was to be given to the investors by DD Buildwell Pvt. Ltd./DD Infrastructure by 21.12.2011, but the same was never given. In fact, the mechanism had been stopped by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as the opposite parties concealed many orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.05.2012 etc. The investors, including complainants, were kept in dark. No intimation, either verbal or written, was given as to from whom they got the money. These were the observations of investigations conducted by "Economic Offence Wing" (EOW), New Delhi, as mentioned in the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. A large number of investors, headed by Sh. Santosh Goel, made complaint to E.O.W., New Delhi and FIR No.43/2011 under Section 409/420/120-B IPC was registered with "Economic Offences Wing", Crime Branch, New Delhi against the opposite parties. In fact, more than 12 FIRs were registered against the opposite parties at Faridabad with EOW. Managing Director of the opposite parties, namely Sh. Sanjay Gambhir, moved Bail Application No.445 of 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court at New Delhi, which was dismissed, vide order dated 01.06.2012; in which it was observed that offences, which have been committed by opposite parties No.1 to 5, are of high magnitude of public fraud and cheating and such offences, being on rise in the city, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence of the Court. While dismissing the said Bail Application, Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 8 Hon'ble High Court evolved the mechanism to repay/refund the amount/money to the complainants/investors. Though the criminal/civil proceedings are still pending against the Managing Director/Proprietors of the opposite parties and the matter regarding mechanism for disbursement of money was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 30.04.2014, not affecting the rights of the persons, who have already received the amount from the opposite parties, after the initiation of the said mechanism. The opposite parties concealed the following orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court:
1. Bail Application No.397 of 2012, order dated 17.05.2012 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
2. Criminal Appeal No.817 of 2012 dated 11.05.2012 (Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
3. CRLMP No.16614 of 2012, order dated 17.08.2012 (Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
4. (Crl.) No.(s) 6396/2012 dated 03.09.2012 (Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
5. CRLMP. No.(s) 19566-19567/2013 dated 27.09.2013 (Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
It was further averred that the complainant, along with his family members (other complainants), under the above referred upcoming future projects, got booked 6 plots (3 plots measuring 500 sq.yds. and 3 plots measuring 350 sq.yds.) at the rate of ₹7,500/- per sq.yd. at Mohali (Punjab). They deposited approximately 20% amount i.e. Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 9 ₹39,00,000/- with opposite party No.2, out of the total sale consideration to be assessed by the opposite parties at the time of final settlement. The details of payment are as under:
1. Vide PR Customer Code MP 761 S.C.Sharad ₹7,50,000/-
2. ,, ,, ,, ,, MP 762 Nikhil ₹7,50,000/-
3. ,, ,, ,, ,, MP 763 Nilima ₹7,50,000/-
4. ,, ,, ,, ,, MP 766 Nilima ₹5,50,000/-
5. ,, ,, ,, ,, MP 767 Aniket ₹5,50,000/-
6. ,, ,, ,, ,, MP 773 S.C.Sharad ₹5,50,000/-
Total ₹39,00,000/-
The complainants also paid a sum of ₹16,50,000/- on 15.12.2007 to opposite party No.5 for booking of four plots, out of the above said plots. Out of those plots, one plot was measuring 350 sq.yds. at the rate of ₹8,500/- per sq.yd. and the remaining plots were measuring 200 sq.yds. at the same rate. Approximately 20% of the total amount was deposited. The details of the said payment made are as under:
1. PR Customer Code FP 1155 Nilima ₹6,00,000/-
& S.C. Sharad
2. ,, ,, ,, FP 1156 Nilima ₹3,50,000/-
3. ,, ,, ,, FP 1157 Nikhil ₹3,50,000/-
4. ,, ,, ,, FP 1158 Aniket ₹3,50,000/-
Total ₹16,50,000/-
Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 10After depositing the above said amounts of ₹39,00,000/- on 31.03.2006 and ₹16,50,000/- on 15.12.2007, the complainants requested the opposite parties to comply with the promises as well as assurances made by them, but without any result. On repeated requests made by the complainant (s), the opposite parties took back all the receipts of D.D. Merchant Bankers and D.D. Infrastructure from the complainant (s) on 02.04.2008 and issued four receipts under the name and style of M/s D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., for Faridabad Project, the details of which are as under:
a) PR Customer Code No.BB001, for Nilima, dated 02.04.2008 amounting to ₹3,50,000/- at the rate of ₹7,350/- per sq.yd. and paid 20% approximately;
b) PR Customer Code No.BB002, for Aniket, dated 02.04.2008 amounting to ₹3,50,000/- at the rate of ₹7,350/- per sq.yd. and paid 20% approximately;
c) PR Customer Code No.BB003, for Nikhil, dated 02.04.2008 amounting to ₹3,50,000/- at the rate of ₹7,350/- per sq.yd. and paid 20% approximately;
d) PR Customer Code No.BD004, for Nilima & S.C. Sharad, dated 02.04.2008 amounting to ₹7,35,000/- at the rate of ₹7,350/- per sq.yd. and paid 20% approximately.
Total : ₹17,85,000/-.
After issuing only four receipts, the opposite parties delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and left the complainant(s) in a dark situation, without disclosing the status of their upcoming future Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 11 projects. Neither the plots, as promised by the opposite parties, were allotted to the complainants, nor their above mentioned earnest money was repaid to them. Thus, the opposite parties committed persistent breach of contract entered into by them with the complainant(s).
Ultimately, the complainant (s) requested opposite parties No.1 to 5 to repay their amounts, along with interest at the rate of 21.50%. In order to dupe the complainants, the opposite parties issued six cheques, total amounting to ₹27,30,000/-, as per following details:
Sr. No. Cheque No. Dated Amount 1. 892496 20.07.2008 ₹5,00,000/- 2. 892497 24.07.2008 ₹5,00,000/- 3. 892498 28.07.2008 ₹5,00,000/- 4. 892499 02.08.2008 ₹5,00,000/- 5. 892500 06.08.2008 ₹3,65,000/- 6. 892501 10.08.2008 ₹3,65,000/-
The above said cheques issued by the opposite parties were not encashed/honoured, as the opposite parties had directed their Bankers, i.e. Indian Overseas Bank to stop the payments. Thus, the opposite parties committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420 IPC. It was further averred that on constant follow-up for the remaining amount, the opposite parties issued following 8 receipts to the complainants for the project to be launched at Zirakpur, Punjab:
Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 12
1 PR Customer Code CA- S.C. ₹4,20,000/- Dated 13/12/2008 039 Sharad at the rate of ₹8,400/- per sq.yds. being 20% out of total sale consideration 2 ,, ,, ,, CA- Nilima ₹4,20,000/- -do-006
3 ,, ,, ,, CA- Nilima ₹4,20,000/- -do-007
4 ,, ,, ,, CA- Aniket ₹4,20,000/- -do-008
5 ,, ,, ,, CA- Aniket ₹4,20,000/- -do-009
6 ,, ,, ,, CA- S.C.Sharad ₹4,20,000/- -do-010
7 ,, ,, ,, CA- S.C. ₹4,20,000/- -do-
011 Sharad 8 ,, ,, ,, CA- Nikhil ₹5,88,000/- -do-012
TOTAL ₹,35,28,000/-
It was further averred that against receipt No.CA-039, Sh. Ajay Goyal, agent of the Company had also paid ₹4,20,000/- by transfer, out of his commission money due from the Company, in the name of complainant, Sh. S.C. Sharad. The licence for the Faridabad Project was granted by Director General, Town and Country Planner, Haryana, vide Licence No.30 in the year 2010 to D.D. Township in Sector 77, Faridabad, Haryana. After launching Faridabad project, the opposite parties received FDI, M/s Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd., vide various deeds and ultimately the said FDI Company acquired the entire land under the above mentioned Licence for ₹230 Crores approximately. FDI then transferred the entire equity holding to another Company namely "Rose Infracon Pvt. Ltd.", owned subsidiary of BPTP, Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 13 opposite party No.6 (now known as Parklands Pride). Licence No.30 of 2010 was firstly issued to D.D. Township, Faridabad, Sector 77 and then the same was re-issued to BPTP, Parklands Pride; which is making/developing the Colony on the basis of the said re-issued licensed land; whereas the investors/complainants, who had paid money for purchasing the land, booked plots in DD Group, which runs various real Estate Companies. Earlier, as per Clause 1.2.1 (ii) of the agreement executed between the parties, the opposite parties were to give plots to investors, including complainant, S.C. Sharad and his family members, but instead of doing so, they were paying interest only. However, thereafter neither the principal amount nor the interest is being paid. The complainant approached Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 30.04.2014 for collecting refund of principal amount against the plots at Faridabad and Zirakpur, leaving the interest on the same amount, in order to keep their civil and criminal rights intact, as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court. However, he received no refund, because by 30.04.2014, the mechanism had been stopped by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was further averred that at the time of receiving principal amount, without interest from the opposite parties, through Court Commissioner, the complainant and his family members raised some discrepancies with Sh. Kamal Kishore, an employee of the opposite parties, on 03.04.2014 regarding mode of payment as well as total amount etc., as the complainant and his family members paid total amount of ₹55,50,000/-, but got receipts of ₹53,13,000/- i.e. there was difference of ₹2,37,000/- in receipts. The Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 14 opposite parties sent reply through e-mail on 24.04.2014, giving details of the money of the complainant and his family members (complainants in other complaints). However, as per above e-mail, PR Customer Code CA-041 had not been issued to complainant, S.C. Sharad. Receipt No.CA-041 had also not been given to the complainant deliberately. The amount under the said receipt, along with interest, was to be given to the complainant, S.C. Sharad, with effect from 01.05.2009 till realization. As mentioned above, for CA-039, Mr. Ajay Goyal had also paid transferring amount of ₹4,20,000/-, being his commission money, to the complainant, S.C. Sharad, meaning thereby that the same amount was paid by Mr. Ajay Goyal and Sh.
S.C. Sharad. In fact, Mr. Ajay Goyal had to give ₹4,20,000/- and ₹16,50,000/- to complainant S.C. Sharad and his family members. The same was adjusted for receipt No.CA-039/CA-041 (₹4,20,000/-) and DD Infrastructure receipts (₹16,50,000/-), but there is no mention about DD Infrastructure Project money, which amounts to ₹16,50,000/- . Furthermore, the opposite parties remained silent, as to for what ₹2,57,000/- had been given to complainant, S.C. Sharad and his family members. No intimation was ever given regarding any interest/bonus paid by the opposite parties, nor any TDS deduction was made by them. Thus, the opposite parties, through their Managing Directors/Directors, have collected huge money from complainant S.C. Sharad and his family members (complainants in other complaints), by playing fraud. More than 8 years have passed, but the opposite parties have not given any plots to the complainant (s) and only partial money Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 15 had been paid on 03.04.2014, that too as per the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The complainant and his family members suffered constant mental and physical agony, due to the deficiency in service and fraud played by the opposite parties. The complainants are entitled to seek interest/bonus as already given on D.D. Merchat Bankers Ltd., pattern from 31.03.2006 to 02.04.2008 at the rate of 21.5% approximately. Thus, the complainant, in Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2017, has prayed for grant of following compensation for easy calculation year-wise from the opposite parties, along with interest at the rate of 21.5% from the date of deposit/transfer till actual date of payment:
i) Principal amount of ₹3,00,000/-, along with interest/bonus on DD Infrastructure receipt from 15.12.2007 to 16.12.2014 amounting to ₹4,51,500/-, total amounting to ₹7,51,500/-;
ii) Principal amount of ₹12,60,000/-, already got interest/bonus on two DD Buildwell plots from 02.04.2008 to 03.04.2014, total amounting to ₹16,25,400/-;
iii) Principal amount for DD Buildwell Ltd. CA-041 for ₹4,20,000/-
plus interest from 01.05.2009 to 02.05.2014 amounting to ₹4,51,500/-; totaling ₹8,71,500/-;
iv) Principal amount already got ₹3,67,500/- (half) on DD Buildwell plot at Faridabad;
v) Amount already got ₹12,000/-; vi) Compensation at the rate ₹1 lac per year, on account of mental
agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, from the Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 16 date of deposit i.e. from 2006 till realization; amounting to ₹8,00,000/-; and
vii) Litigation expenses of ₹2,00,000/-.
Grand Total : ₹42,36,400/-
Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.47 of 2017, on the basis of averments made above, the complainant has prayed for grant of following compensation for easy calculation year-wise from the opposite parties, along with interest at the rate of 21.5% from the date of deposit/transfer till actual date of payment:
i) Principal amount of ₹3,00,000/-, along with interest/bonus on DD Infrastructure receipt from 15.12.2007 to 16.12.2014 amounting to ₹4,51,500/-, total amounting to ₹7,51,500/-;
ii) Principal amount of ₹3,50,000/-, with interest/bonus on DD Infrastructure from 15.12.2007 to 16.12.2014 i.e. ₹5,26,750/-, total amounting to ₹8,76,750/-;
iii) Principal amount of ₹8,40,000/-, with already got interest/bonus on tow DD Buildwell plots from 02.04.2008 to 03.04.2014, total amounting to ₹10,83,600/-;
iv) Principal amount already received (one and half) from 02.04.2008 to 03.04.2014;
v) Compensation at the rate ₹1 lac per year, on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, from the date of deposit i.e. from 2006 till realization; amounting to ₹8,00,000/-; and
vi) Litigation expenses of ₹2,00,000/-.
Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 17
Total = ₹37,11,850/-.
Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2017, on the basis of averments made above, the complainant has prayed for grant of following compensation for easy calculation year-wise from the opposite parties, along with interest at the rate of 21.5% from the date of deposit/transfer till actual date of payment:
i) Principal amount of ₹3,50,000/-, along with interest/bonus on DD Infrastructure receipt from 15.12.2007 to 16.12.2014 amounting to ₹5,26,750/-, total amounting to ₹8,76,750/-;
ii) Principal amount of ₹8,40,000/-, with interest/bonus on two DD Buildwell plots from 02.04.2008 to 03.04.2014 i.e. ₹10,83,600/-, total amounting to ₹19,23,600/-;
iii) Do not want principal amount and interest on Faridabad plot, want to contest for the plot;
iv) Amount already got ₹45,000/-; v) Compensation at the rate ₹1 lac per year, on account of mental
agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, from the date of deposit i.e. from 2006 till realization; amounting to ₹8,00,000/-; and
vi) Litigation expenses of ₹2,00,000/-.
Total = ₹37,55,350/-.
Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2017, on the basis of averments made above, the complainant has prayed for grant of following compensation for easy calculation year-wise from the Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 18 opposite parties, along with interest at the rate of 21.5% from the date of deposit/transfer till actual date of payment:
i) Principal amount of ₹3,50,000/-, along with interest/bonus on DD Infrastructure receipt from 15.12.2007 to 16.12.2014 amounting to ₹5,26,750/-, total amounting to ₹8,76,750/-;
ii) Principal amount of ₹5,88,000/-, with interest/bonus on two DD Buildwell plots from 02.04.2008 to 03.04.2014 i.e. ₹7,58,520/-, total amounting to ₹13,46,520/-;
iii) Do not want principal amount and interest on Faridabad plot, want to contest for the plot;
iv) Amount already got ₹2,00,000/-; v) Compensation at the rate ₹1 lac per year, on account of mental
agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, from the date of deposit i.e. from 2006 till realization; amounting to ₹8,00,000/-; and
vi) Litigation expenses of ₹2,00,000/-.
Total = ₹30,23,270/-.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.3 & 6 appeared and filed their respective replies to the complaint, whereas opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 did not appear before this Commission, despite their service and were proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 06.10.2016.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of opposite party No.3, the preliminary objections were raised that the complainant is not a Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 19 'consumer' qua the answering opposite party, as he has not paid any consideration to it. As such, the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The complainant cannot take benefits of his own wrongs, as he put his signatures on the documents, after reading and understanding the nature of the same. The complaint is abuse of the process of law, as the complainant is asking for the refund of the amount from the answering opposite party, ignoring the fact that the same has not been paid to it. The complainant is interested in recovery of the amount, for which the remedy lies only before the Civil Court. Since there is no agreement/contract executed between the parties, so the complaint does not lie under the purview of the Act. The complaint is not within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is also time barred. The same is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has levelled allegations of cheating and fraud, which cannot be dealt with in summary proceedings. No case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is made out against the answering opposite party. On merits, similar pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were reiterated and it was further pleaded that no consideration was ever paid to opposite party No.3 by the complainant. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. Earlier, opposite party No.6 failed to file reply within the statutory period of 45 days and it filed application (M.A. No.1165 of 2016) for permitting it to file reply beyond 45 days. The said application Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 20 was allowed, vide order dated 23.02.2017, and opposite party No.6 was permitted to file reply, subject to costs of ₹1,50,000/-; out of which a sum of ₹1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant and the remaining amount of ₹50,000/- was ordered to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. However, neither the costs were deposited nor the reply was filed by opposite party No.6 and accordingly vide, order dated 17.04.2017, the defence of opposite party No.6 was struck off. However, as per order dated 05.06.2017, copy of the order dated 29.05.2017 of the Hon'ble National Commission was filed, as per which the order of this Commission, to the extent of cost of ₹1,50,000/- imposed upon opposite party No.6, while condoning the delay in filing the written version, was stayed subject to opposite party No.6 depositing 50% of the said amount with this Commission. In compliance of that order, opposite party No.6 deposited a sum of ₹75,000/- with this Commission, vide receipt No.422692 dated 08.06.2017, and as such, vide order dated 08.06.2017, the written reply filed by opposite party No.6 was ordered to be taken on the record.
6. Opposite party No.6, in its reply, raised certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party, as there is no privity of contract between it and the complainant. The complainant is not covered under the definition of 'consumer, as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The complainant has neither executed any agreement with opposite party No.6, nor paid any amount to it. Opposite party No.6 is neither service-provider nor a Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 21 trader with respect to the complainant. It has neither demanded nor received any payment from him, nor any transaction/sale of goods has ever taken place between it and the complainant. Thus, opposite party No.6 is not a proper party and it has been erroneously impleaded. The complaint has been filed, by way of conspiracy done by the promoters of DD Group of Companies, namely (i) Mr. Sanjay Gambhir, (ii) Ms. Reena Gambhir, (iii) Mr. Karan Gambhir, (iv) Mr. Kanishk Raaj Gambhir, in collusion with the complainant to somehow entangle the answering opposite party in litigation; so as to extract money from it, illegally. The objective of the complaint is also to cause loss and harm to hundreds of genuine home buyers, who have purchased houses in the form of plots and flats from the answering opposite party by derailing the development of its project, which is being executed on the land owned by it and over which DGTCP Haryana has issued licence No.30 of 2010. Opposite party No.6 has invested ₹500 Crore on the said project. The present complaint is also not maintainable, as the issue raised therein has already been decided by DGTCP in a complaint filed by two similar investors of the Promoter Group, namely Ms. Preeti Singh and Mr. Neeraj Mahajan. In fact, both of them filed Civil Writ Petition No.4149 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana on the same alleged issues, wherein opposite party No.6-BPTP Parklands Pride Limited (formerly known as New Age Town Planners Limited and originally known as D.D. Housing Limited) was arrayed as respondent No.3. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 05.03.2014, issued directions to DGTCP Haryana to treat the Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 22 Writ Petition filed by the petitioners therein as a representation with respect to Licence No.30 of 2010. In view of that order, the DGTCP directed opposite party No.6 to provide a detailed reply, which was duly filed and after considering all the issues raised by the said investors and replies submitted by opposite party No.6, DGTCP passed a detailed speaking order dated 27.06.2014, clearly stating that the alleged investors are not allottees of opposite party No.6. The complainant has wrongly alleged that he and his family members have invested money in the project at Sector 77, Faridabad, which is being developed by opposite party No.6 and part of it is being developed by HUDA, who has also launched a plotted colony/project. The entire case of the complainant is based upon the alleged copies of certain receipts, which do not mention any City or State, where the project is to be located. Perusal of those receipts shows that the same are issued by opposite parties No.2, 4 & 5-Companies, which are promoted by DD Group (Sanjay Gambhir and his family members) and they have no relation whatsoever with opposite party No.6. The said receipts are apparently issued towards payment in respect of Provisional Registration for a unit/plot in some upcoming future projects, without even specifying the details of the said project in terms of Sector, Area, City, Licence No. etc. These receipts only show an acknowledgment on the part of opposite parties No.2, 4 and 5. Thus, the complainant is just an investor, who invested the money in DD Group to earn profits, without undertaking any due diligence on the ownership of land or licence; which are essential for development of a Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 23 colony in the State of Haryana. It was further pleaded that opposite party No.6-Company was incorporated on 05.09.2006, as an FDI compliant Company, wherein M/s DD Group sought investment from M/s Beekman Helix/TMW for a sum of ₹123 Crore and it was opposite party No.6, who owned the land either in its name or through assignment deeds. The conditions for grant of licence were complied with by FDI Company, directly. Thus, due to various omissions and commissions done by the promoter family, led by Mr. Sanjay Gambhir, they lost control and total share-holding of opposite party No.6, which is now owned by M/s BPTP Group. None of opposite parties No.1 to 5 is landowner. Opposite party No.1 failed to get the licence and has confirmed and assured opposite party No.6 that it has not created any third party right over the licence/project and received ₹39 Crore, in terms of Non-Compete Agreement Payment Mechanism Agreement. As per settled principle of law, every Company is a separate legal entity. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT AIR 1955 SC 74 that a shareholder cannot claim its right on the assets of the Company. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi clearly mentioned in its order dated 26.09.2012 that two companies i.e. "D.D. Infrastructure" (a division of DD Industries Limited) and "D.D. Buildwell Private Limited", wherein the complainant has allegedly made the investments, are owned, managed and controlled by Mr. Sanjay Gambhir and Mrs. Reena Gambhir. Further, vide order dated 01.06.2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on the bail application No.445/2012 of Mr. Sanjay Gambhir, observed as under:
Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 24
".....Undisputedly the complainants could not enforce their claims against the third party BPTP. When confronted with this, learned counsel sought to argue that they have filed a civil proceeding against BPTP and that their liability would be determined in due course. This was an extremely irrelevant, misplaced and extraneous submission that was sought to be pressed. This would rather reflect the dishonest intention of the petitioner in finding one after other excuses."
Thus, it is apparent that opposite party No.6 is a separate legal entity and obligations of DD Group promoted by Sanjay Gambhir and his family members cannot be fastened upon opposite party No.6, by the investors of DD Group. The complainant is playing fraud upon this Commission, with the aid and assistance of DD Group. The complainant has alleged that he, along with his family members (complainants in other complaints), had made investments worth ₹39 lacs on 31.03.2006, against which 6 receipts were issued by opposite party No.2. Thereafter, they invested another sum of ₹16,50,000/- on 15.12.2007 with opposite party No.5, against which 4 receipts were issued. Thus, he along with his family member, had invested ₹55.5 lac with DD Group. The complainant further alleged that later DD Group took back all these receipts and issued four receipts in the name of opposite party No.4, totaling ₹17.85 lac on 02.04.2008 and also issued cheques for ₹27.3 lac with dates of July, 2008 and August, 2008; which were dishonoured. It, later on, issued 8 receipts in the name of opposite party No.4, totaling ₹35.28 lacs. In support thereof, the Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 25 complainant produced copies of alleged receipts and e-mail dated 24.04.2014 provided by DD Group. However, a bare perusal of the alleged receipts shows that except for the first set of receipts dated 31.03.2006 totaling ₹39 lac, where the alleged cheque details are given, in all other receipts, the source of payment is stated to be 'transfer'. Thus, even the alleged documents do not corroborate the allegations of the complainant and they rather prove that the complainant is acting in connivance with DD Group and filed this complaint, with the sole motive to harass opposite party No.6. The cause of action arose to the complainant on 31.03.2006, when he invested in the above future projects and thereafter it again arose on 15.12.2007, when he allegedly made further investment in future projects. The cause of action further arose in July-August, 2008, when the cheques were allegedly issued. It further arose in August and November, 2008, when the cheques were allegedly dishonoured and then again arose in December, 2008, when further receipts were issued. Thus, the present complaint filed in the year 2015 is hugely time barred, under Section 24A of the Act. With a view to somehow invoke the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, the complainant has detailed the various investments made by himself and his family members (complainants in other complaints) in this complaint, in order to mislead this Commission. Moreover, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. With a view to create territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, "D.S.P. Real Estates Pvt. Ltd." alleged to have its office at SCO No.363, 1st Floor, Sector 32- Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 26 D, Chandigarh has been made party, without raising any specific allegations/role of the said opposite party in the alleged transaction. Apart from it, none of the other opposite parties are located within the jurisdiction of this Commission. In fact, the other opposite parties are running their business at Delhi. Opposite party No.6 operates its business at Faridabd. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It was further pleaded that there is no grievance or allegation made by the complainant against opposite party No.6 and all the disputes/allegations/averments raised are against opposite parties No.1 to 5 only. As such, the name of opposite party No.6 is liable to be deleted from the array of the parties in the complaint. It was further pleaded that in the year 2004-05, DD Group, with an intention to start business of Real Estate on all India basis i.e. more particularly in cities of Mohali, Zirakpur, Sonepat, Faridabad, Indore etc, incorporated Company namely DD Township Ltd. Sh. Sanjay Gambhir, the proprietor of DD Group received investments from individual investors in three Companies held by him i.e. M/s D.D. Merchant Bankers Ltd., M/s D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and M/s D.D. Infrastructure and in lieu thereof issued various receipts without disclosing the details of the project, i.e. area of the project, location, sector etc. The said Companies were receiving investments, in clear violation of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, which provides that no person can launch or sell plots/flats without obtaining a licence. Various other transactions/actions, which took place from the year 2004-05 to 04.05.2016, have also been Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 27 enumerated at Pages-291 to 312 of the reply. On merits, similar pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were reiterated. With respect to the allegation regarding the undertaking given by opposite party No.6 before the DGTCP for transferring licence No.30/2010 in is favour, it was reiterated that the said undertaking was given, in view of the agreement executed with Sanjay Gambhir/opposite party No.1 on 16.02.2011 by way of "Payment Mechanism Agreement (PMA) and Non-Compete Agreement (NCA). This was done to avoid uncalled for disputes, which were being created by opposite party No.1. The PMA was devised on the request of the promoter group to settle its claimants, whose names are part of the agreement, with a limited liability to the extent of ₹39 Crore, which stands discharged in full by the answering opposite party. Opposite party No.6 did not have any obligation or liability in respect of the claimants of the promoter group, other than the payment of the non-compete fee to the promoter group, provided the promoter group is not in breach of any of the representations, warranties and undertakings, as accepted by them. In terms of above said undertaking, the money was to be given back to investors by 21.12.2011, but it was not deposited till then. In terms of NCA/PMA, opposite party No.6 started making payment in tranches to the promoter group and in fact a sum of ₹13,51,83,067/- was paid till September, 2011, against which the promoters group refunded to 278 out of 738 claimants. Thereafter, further amount was requested for by the promoters group on an urgent basis and opposite party No.6 advanced a further sum of ₹7 Crore, for which no proof of having made Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 28 payment to claimants/investors was given by the promoter group, despite repeated requests of opposite party No.6. Hence, due to breach of terms committed by DD Group, further payments could not be released to them. However, as per order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, which was also consented by Mr. Sanjay Gambhir, a sum of ₹16.63 Crores was deposited with it for making payment to the investors, in terms of the above referred order of the Hon'ble High Court. It was further pleaded that payment mechanism was devised in the Bail Applications. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded in a Bail Application that there was no occasion or justification for the High Court to go into the merits of the allegations and to pass erroneous orders from time to time, framing schemes for refund of money to the alleged investors; as no condition, including scheme, can be framed for release on bail, on the assumption that offence has been committed by the accused. Hence, the allegation that the Hon'ble Supreme Court stopped the refund mechanism, due to concealment of any orders, is unfounded and patently wrong. It was further pleaded that opposite party No.6 was not a party to the complaint/FIRs filed before EOW by Santosh Goel. It was further pleaded that the licence was granted to the landowners and opposite party No.1 was not the landowner. In fact, opposite party No.1 was a collaborator, who had taken responsibility of developing the project, in terms of licence to fulfil the financial obligations, such as payment of dues and charges. On account of inability of opposite party No.1 to fulfil the financial obligations, the LOI for grant of licence lapsed and Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 29 only upon the payments made by the FDI investor, the LOI was revised and ultimately the licence was granted. It was further pleaded that there was no change in licence, but only the Developer of the project was changed and the answering opposite party is the developer of the project and licensee as well, who attained the licence, but there is no privity of contract between it and the complainant. The alleged bookings of the complainant in the un-named future projects of DD Group have no relation with the said licence No.30 of 2010, which pertains to Faridabad. Regarding this matter, the DGTCP has already held in the matter of 'Preet Singh & Anr.' that the answering opposite party is not liable for the actions of opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5. As no transaction took place between the complainant and the answering opposite party, so the complainant is free to initiate any action before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for revival of refund mechanism and the answering opposite party supports all and any such action, as that would be for the benefit of public at large, subject to adherence of the agreements executed for that purpose. All other allegations of the complaint were denied being false, frivolous and vexatious and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
7. Along with the reply, opposite party No.6 also filed separate Misc. Applications for dismissal of the complaint, on the ground that (i) the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'Consumer', as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as he purchased more than one plots/units; (ii) the complaint is time barred, having been filed beyond the period of limitation of two years, as per Section 24A of Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 30 the Act; (iii) this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; and (iv) this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.
8. In other complaints also, opposite parties No.3 & 6 filed their reply, on the word to word lines of their replies, as given in Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2017.
9. In other complaints also, Opposite party No.6 filed similar applications, as filed by them in Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2017. Evidence of the Parties
10. To prove his claim made in the complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-A, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-90, including Ex.C-11A, Ex.C-31A and Ex.C-36A.
11. On the other hand, opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Bansal, Authorized Representative, as Ex.OP3/A.
12. Opposite party No.6 tendered affidavit of Sh. Inderjeet, Authorized Representative, as Ex.OP-6/A, along with documents Ex.R- 1 to Ex.R-16, including Ex.R-2 (a) to Ex.R-2 (d).
13. In other complaints, the complainants as well as opposite parties No.3 & 6 tendered the same/similar documents, as tendered by them in Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2017.
Contentions of the Parties
14. We have heard Sh. S.C. Sharad, complainant in person, on his behalf as well as on behalf of other complainants in Consumer Complaints No.47/48/50 of 2017. We have also heard learned counsel Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 31 for opposite parties No.3 & 6; whereas opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 were proceeded against ex parte. We have also perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No.3 and have gone through the record carefully.
15. The complainant, who is present in person, vehemently contended that the opposite parties formed a Company/Companies and collected huge money from general public, including the complainant and his family members (complainants in other complaints), by launching the upcoming future projects under the following names and styles, for development of township of Faridabad, Sonepat, Zirakpur and Mohali in the year 2005/2006:
i) M/s D.D. Merchants Bankers Ltd. ii) M/s D.D. Infrastructure (A Division of D.D. Industries Ltd.). iii) M/s D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. iv) D.D. Township Ltd.
It was further contended that the complainant and his family members deposited ₹39,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration of six plots booked by them, which was to be assessed by the opposite parties at the time of final settlement. The complainant was issued receipts Ex.C- 1 and Ex.C-2 dated 31.03.2006 for ₹7,50,000/- and ₹5,50,000/-, respectively, by opposite party No.2-D.D. Merchant Bankers Ltd, towards Provisional Registration amount for its upcoming future projects. The wife of the complainant Smt. Nilima (complainant in CC No.47 of 2015) was issued receipts dated 15.12.2007 and 02.04.2008, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, for ₹6,00,000/- and ₹7,35,000/- by opposite parties Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 32 No.5 and 4 respectively. It was further contended that opposite party No.2 issued cheques Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 for ₹5,00,000/- each. The said cheques were dishonoured, vide Memos Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-11A, with remarks that "payment stopped by the drawer". Further cheques issued by the opposite parties were also dishonoured. A sum of ₹4,20,000/- was transferred in favour of the complainant by Sh. Ajay Goyal, being his commission amount, as per letter dated 01.05.2009, Ex.C-24. It was further contended that in all 12 receipts were issued by the opposite parties to the complainant and his family, out of which 4 receipts were issued for Faridabad project and the remaining 8 receipts were issued for their Zirakpur project. In fact, the opposite parties floated their projects to be set up at Zirakpur, Mohali, Faridabad and Sonepat and adjustment of the amounts deposited by the complainant and his family members was made in those projects by the opposite parties. However, the complainant and his family members invested their amounts only in the project to be set up at Mohali and Zirakpur only i.e. within the territory of State of Punjab. It was further contended that as per the undertaking given by the opposite parties, the refund was to be given to the investors by DD Buildwell Pvt. Ltd./DD Infrastructure by 21.12.2011, but the same was never given. The mechanism had been stopped by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as the opposite parties concealed many orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.05.2012. The investors, including complainant No.1 were kept in dark. No intimation, either verbal or written, was given as Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 33 to from whom they got the money. Similar observations were made in the investigations conducted by the "Economic Offence Wing" (EOW), New Delhi, as mentioned in the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. After the lapse of more than 11 years, the opposite parties have failed to allot any plots to the complainant (s) and only partial money has been paid on 03.04.2014, that too as per the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The complainant and his family members suffered constant mental and physical agony due to the deficiency in service and fraud played upon them by the opposite parties. It was, thus, contended that the complaint is liable to be allowed and all the directions, as prayed for therein, are liable to be issued to the opposite parties.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.3, in addition to the written arguments, vehemently contended that the complainant has not paid any consideration to opposite party No.3, as is evident from the documentary evidence produced on the record. The complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as per the Act. No case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against opposite party No.3. The complaint is, thus, liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.3.
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.6 vehemently contended that the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'Consumer', as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as he purchased more than one plot/unit. The complaint is time barred, having been filed beyond the period of limitation of two years, as per Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 34 Section 24A of the Act. This Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. This Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, as opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 are doing their business at New Delhi, whereas opposite party No.6 is running its business at Faridabad (Haryana). Opposite party No.3, which is located at Chandigarh has been impleaded, just to create territorial jurisdiction upon this Commission, whereas no transaction ever took place between the complainant and opposite party No.3. It was further contended that there is no privity of contract entered into between opposite party No.6 and the complainant. Neither any agreement was executed between them, nor any amount was ever paid by the complainant or his family members (complainants in other complaints) to opposite party No.6. It was further contended that in fact, the present complaint is the outcome of the conspiracy hatched by the promoters of DD Group of Companies, namely (i) Mr. Sanjay Gambhir, (ii) Ms. Reena Gambhir, (iii) Mr. Karan Gambhir, (iv) Mr. Kanishk Raaj Gambhir, in collusion with the complainant to somehow entangle this opposite party in an unwanted and uncalled for litigation, just with a motive to extract money from it, illegally. It was further contended that the complaint is not maintainable, as two similar investors of the Promoter Group, namely Ms. Preeti Singh and Mr. Neeraj Mahajan filed Civil Writ Petition No.4149 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana on the same alleged issues, wherein opposite party No.6-BPTP Parklands Pride Limited (formerly known as New Age Town Planners Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 35 Limited and originally known as D.D. Housing Limited) was arrayed as respondent No.3. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 05.03.2014, issued directions to DGTCP Haryana to treat the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners therein as a representation with respect to Licence No.30 of 2010. In accordance of that order, the DGTCP directed opposite party No.6 to provide a detailed reply, which was duly filed and after considering all the issues raised by the said investors and replies submitted by opposite party No.6, the DGTCP passed a detailed speaking order dated 27.06.2014, clearly stating that the alleged investors are not allottees of opposite party No.6. It was further contended that entire case of the complainant is based upon the alleged copies of certain receipts, which do not mention any City or State, where the project is to be located. The same are issued by opposite parties No.2, 4 & 5-Companies, which are promoted by DD Group (Sanjay Gambhir and his family members). Thus, the said receipts have no relation whatsoever with opposite party No.6. It was further contended that the other opposite parties were receiving investments, in clear violation of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, which provides that no person can launch or sell plots/flats without obtaining a valid licence. It was further contended that opposite party No.6- Company was incorporated on 05.09.2006 as an FDI compliant Company, wherein M/s DD Group sought investment from M/s Beekman Helix/TMW for a sum of ₹123 Crore and it was opposite party No.6, who owned the land either in its name or through Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 36 assignment deeds. The conditions for grant of licence were complied with by FDI Company directly. However, due to various acts of omissions and commissions done by the promoter family led by Mr. Sanjay Gambhir, they lost control and total share-holding of opposite party No.6, which is now owned by M/s BPTP Group. It was, thus, contended that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.6, nor there is any privity of contract between it and the complainant with regard to the alleged transactions, which actually took place between the complainant and other opposite parties. The complaint against opposite party No.6 deserves to be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the parties.
19. Detailed arguments have been raised on behalf of the contesting parties on maintainability as well as merits of the instant case. Before adverting to the other aspects/merits of the matter, we first intend to deal with the preliminary objection raised by opposite party No.6 that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, as the alleged receipts issued in the name of complainant and his family members (complainants in other complaints) do not mention the name of the Licence No., Sector, Area, City, State etc, where the alleged upcoming future projects of the opposite parties were to be set up. The alleged receipts do not show that the project was to be set up at Zirakpur or Mohali, within the State Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 37 of Punjab. Furthermore, it is the specific pleading of opposite party No.6 that opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 are doing their business at New Delhi, whereas opposite party No.6 is running its business at Faridabad (Haryana). Only the office of opposite party No.3 is located at Chandigarh, but opposite party No.3 has been impleaded, just to create territorial jurisdiction upon this Commission, whereas no transaction ever took place between the complainant and opposite party No.3.
20. In view of above factual matrix of the case, we forego the other merits of the case and we restrict ourselves only to determine the issue, whether this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not?
21. Section 17 of the Act deals with "Jurisdiction of the State Commission, which reads as follows:
17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission. --
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and
compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 38
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 39
22. A bare reading of the above Section 17 (2) of the Act indicates that a complaint can be instituted in the State Commission, within whose limits any of the opposite parties, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or any of the opposite parties carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
23. It is candidly admitted by the complainant himself that there is no agreement executed between him and the opposite parties, mentioning the specific project name or its location. There are only the receipts issued by D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., D.D. Merchant Bankers Ltd., D.D. Infrastructure etc.
24. A Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed on 20.02.2014 in CWP No.3681 of 2014 titled as "DD Global Capital Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Others; in which the issue involved was regarding the transfer of alleged Licence No.30/2010, which also figures in this complaint. In the said judgment, it has been mentioned that there had been litigation between the parties before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In view of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the matter between the opposite parties and other was decided by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning (Appeals), Haryana, Chandigarh, in Appeal No.22/2014 decided on 05.02.2016 titled as "DD Global Capital Ltd. v. Director General, Town Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 40 and Country Planning, Haryana & Another". For resolving the disputes between different Companies, judgments were delivered by various courts, where the rights of the parties inter-se were determined. However, the complainant was nowhere party in all those proceedings. In the order Ex.R-15, extract of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been quoted regarding the relationship of various opposite parties. Be that as it may, we cannot comment upon the said judgments, nor they are relevant at this stage, since those judgments were delivered regarding the inter-se disputes between the opposite parties and others. We are only concerned, whether the complainant, being a consumer, can file complaint before this Commission, keeping in view the territorial jurisdiction.
25. In support of his case, the complainant has produced on record receipts dated 31.03.2006, Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, vide which he deposited a sum of ₹7,50,000/- and ₹5,50,000/- with opposite party No.2-D.D. Merchant Bankers Ltd., towards Provisional Registration amount for its upcoming future projects. The address of opposite party No.2 given in these receipts is of New Delhi. The complainant has also produced on record receipts dated 15.12.2007 and 02.04.2008, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, for ₹6,00,000/- and ₹7,35,000/-, which were issued by opposite party No.4-D.D. Buildwell in the name of the wife of the complainant, namely Smt. Nilima (complainant in CC No.47 of 2015). In these receipts also, the address of opposite party No.4 is given as that of New Delhi. It is pertinent to mention that there is no mention, as to at which place, Sector, Area, City or State, the alleged upcoming Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 41 future projects of the opposite parties were to be set up and when. The cheques, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 issued by opposite party No.2 in the name of complainant and his wife Nilima were also drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, New Rajinder Nagar Branch, New Delhi. Those cheques were dishonoured, vide Memos Ex.C-10, Ex.C-11 and Ex.C- 11A issued by the said branch of Bank. The other cheques Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14 issued in favour of complainant and his wife were also drawn on the above said Bank at New Delhi. The same were dishonoured, vide Memos Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-17 by the said Bank.
26. The complainant has further produced on record the receipts Ex.C-21 to Ex.C-23 issued in his name by opposite party No.4 for ₹4,20,000/-, each, towards Provisional Registration amount of its upcoming future projects, but no details of locality of the said projects are given in those receipts. As per letter dated 01.05.2009, Ex.C-24, a sum of ₹4,20,000/- was transferred in favour of the complainant, S.C. Sharad, by Sh. Ajay Goyal, out of his commission amount earned from the opposite party No.4-Company. The cheques, Ex.C-32 to Ex.C-35, were issued in the name of the complainant, S.C. Sharad by Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Court Commissioner/Nodal Officer, Delhi High Court.
27. The complainant also produced receipts Ex.C-54 to Ex.C- 61, issued in the name of his wife, Nilima (complainant in Consumer Complaint No.47 of 2017), which were issued by opposite parties No.2,4 & 5. In all the receipts, the address of those opposite parties is mentioned of New Delhi. Similar, there is no mention of the location of the alleged upcoming future projects of the opposite parties, such as Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 42 place/Sector, City or State etc. On the backside of receipts Ex.C-58 and Ex.C-59, "₹7,350/- per sq.yd.; EDC/IDC charges extra; and Govt. levies extra charges" is mentioned, but the fact remains that it is not mentioned therein as to which project those receipts and particulars belong. Similarly receipts Ex.C-66 to Ex.C-70 have been issued by D.D. Merchant Bankers Ltd. in the name of Sh. Aniket (complainant in Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2015) for different amounts, towards Provisional Registration amount for the upcoming future projects. Likewise, receipts Ex.C-75 to Ex.C-78, have been issued in the name of Sh. Nikhil (complainant in Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2015) for different amounts, towards Provisional Registration amount for the upcoming future projects of the opposite parties. In all these receipts also, there is no mention of any Sector, City, State etc.; in which the alleged upcoming future projects of the opposite parties were to be set up.
28. Perusal of Para No.2 of the complaint reveals that the complainant and his other family members, who are complainants in other complaints, had booked six plots of various sizes in a project at Mohali, but they were not allotted any Customer Code. In Para No.5 of the complaint, it is mentioned that Licence No.30 was granted in the year 2010 to DD Township with respect to Sector 77, Faridabad, Haryana. After launching the Faridabad project, the opposite parties received FDI, M/s Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vide various deeds. The dispute between the parties arose and went up to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and other Courts with regard to the Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 43 granting of the said Licence No.30, but the fact remains that none of the documents placed on the record indicate that the complainant or his family members ever entered into any agreement with the opposite parties for purchasing any plot/flat in any project to be launched in the territory of Punjab. Thus, the complainants have failed to place on record any document to connect the payment made by him and his family members with any project of the opposite parties to be launched in Mohali or Zirakpur.
29. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant and his family members (complainants in other complaints) have failed to produce on record any evidence to prove that they booked the plots with the opposite parties in their project to be set up in Zirakpur and Mohali or anywhere else in Punjab. Thus, it is held that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide all the complaints filed by the complainants.
30. Otherwise also, complicated and disputed questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaints, since there is dispute involved between the various entities, who are stated to be the sister concerns of DD Group, which has floated various entities such as:
i) M/s D.D. Merchants Bankers Ltd.
ii) D.D. Infrastructure (A Division of D.D. Industries Ltd.).
iii) D.D. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
iv) D.D. Township Ltd. etc.
It also needs to be referred here that BPTP Parkland Pride Ltd.- opposite party No.6 was earlier known as "New Age Town Planners Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 44 Limited" and originally it was known as "DD Housing Limited". There is also question of merger and de-merger of various Companies into each other, which cannot be decided without the aid of elaborate evidence. The rights and obligations of the respective parties cannot be determined in the present proceedings. To determine inter-se dispute and rights of the various entities, elaborate and voluminous evidence is required. However, as already discussed above, we are not going into the merits of the case, since we have come to the conclusion that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Accordingly, we refrain ourselves from deciding all these complaints, for want of territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
31. So far as the Misc. Applications filed by opposite party No.6 along with its reply in all the complaints are concerned, since this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint, therefore, we need not discuss the merits of those applications at this stage.
32. In view of our above discussion, all the above noted complaints, along with documents filed by the complainants, are ordered to be returned to the complainants, after retaining the copy thereof. The complainants are at liberty to approach appropriate Fora or also are at liberty to avail any other remedy available to them, in accordance with law.
33. The complaints could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2015 45
34. Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Commission, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copies of the order by hand and it would be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly and get free copies of the order.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER January 10, 2018.
(Gurmeet S)