State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Roop Lal Malik & Anr. vs M/S Pal Infrastructure & Devlopers Pvt. ... on 6 July, 2017
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments:06.07.17 Date of Decision: 11.07.17 Complaint No. 928/2017 In the matter of: 1.
Shri Roop Lal Malik & Another S/o Late Shri Mangal Sain Malik R/o E-139, Ist Floor Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar New Delhi-110024. Complainant No. 1
2. Smt. Usha Malik D/o Late Shri Sawanmal Verma R/o E -139, Ist Floor Amar Colony Lajpat Nagar-IV New Delhi-110024. Complainant No. 2 Versus
1. M/s Pal Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office at:
B-45, Shakti Apartments Sector-9, Rohini New Delhi - 110085. ........Opposite Party No. 1
2. M/s Garden Villas & Flats Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office at :
A-27, 2nd Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Phase -1, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. ....Opposite Party No. 2 1
3. Shri Manav Chandra Managing Director of OP No. 1 & 2 Companies B-45, Shakti Apartments Setpr-9, Rohini New Delhi-=110085 ......Opposite Party No.3
4. Shri Rajesh Kumar Director of OP No. 1 & 2 Companies B-45, Shakti Apartments Sector-9, Rohini New Delhi-110085. .....Opposite Party No. 4
5. Shri Brij Nath Gupta Director of OP No. 2 Company A-27, 2nd Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Phase-1 Mathura Road, Ne Delhi-110044. .....Opposite Party No. 5 CORAM Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member
1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes SHRI O.P.GUPTA JUDGEMENT Both the complainants are husband and wife. Complainant No. 1 booked one villa and complainant No. 2 booked 2 villas after paying more than 40% of total sale consideration. On 15.02.10 OP issued Unit Buyers Agreement stating that possession of the villa would be 2 handed over within a period of 36 months from the dte of signing the agreement with grace period of 6 months. On 10.04.17 complainant filed police complaint befor e SHO, Policen Station, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi requetin for registration of FIR u/s 120 -B, 406,417, 420 IPC. Hence this complaint for directing OP to refund entrie amount of Rs. 34,40,000/- alongwith Rs. 20,00,000/- for loss incurred, Rs. 1,00,000/- for legal expenses and Rs. 10,00,000/ - for mental harassment and agony.
2. We have gone through the material on record and heard the counsel for the complainant for the purposeof admission. Undisputedly the complainants have booked 3 villas. One couple require one villa for living and not three vilas. This shows that complainants were investors who booked the flat for the purpose of selling them at time when the prices rise and thereby earn profit. They are not bonafide consumers.
3. The complainantgs have not pleaded anywhere in the complaint that their family is very large or they require more than one villa for residence.
4. In taking the above view we are supported by decision of National Commission in CC No. 208/12 titled as Savvi Gupt vs . Omaxe decided on 01.10.12, Ved Kumar vs. Omaxe 2014 SCC Online NCDRC 120, CC No, 270/13 titled as Madhu Sehgl vs. Omaxe decided on 20.03.14. Similar view has been taken in Inderjeet Dutta vs. Smridhi Developers II (2015) CPJ 342,TDI Infrastructure vs. Ra jesj Jain I (2016) CPJ 377 National Commission , CC No. 5114 titled as Sunil Gupta vs. Today Homes decided by NtionalCommission on 03.02.14, FA 530/15 titled as Sai Everest Developers vs. Harbans Kohli decided by National Commission 21.07.15------------------------------II (2016)CPJ 125 National Commission.
5. Applying the above law the complaintis dismissed in limini.
3Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA)
MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
Sbm
4