National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kumud Ghai vs Tdi (Taneja Developers & ... on 4 March, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1457 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 13/10/2014 in Complaint No. 3/2013 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. KUMUD GHAI W/O. LATE COL. NARESH GHAI (RTD)S/O. DAYAL CHAND, 205-B, ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. TDI (TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.) REGIONAL OFFICE, CO-51-52, SECTOR-118, MOHALI (NH-21) ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Naresh Ghai, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate
Dated : 04 Mar 2016 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in C.C. No. 3/2013 - Kumud Ghai Vs. TDI (Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.) by which, complaint was dismissed with liberty to approach civil court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Anil Kumar Malik was registered for allotting a residential plot of 500 Sq. Yd. @ Rs. 9250/- per sq. yard, priority No. 117 and Customer ID-MPPI10801) on payment of 10% of its value as earnest money and remaining was to be paid in 8 equal instalments and the last 10% with possession of specific plot. After payment of some instalments regularly, on 17.8.2008, he offered to sell this plot to the complainant/appellant and her husband through Ops approved broker. Complainant and her husband purchased this plot from Mr. Anil Kumar Malik which was transferred by OP/respondent in their name after charging Rs.50,000/-. It was further submitted that from time to time payment was remitted to OP, but OP demanded more money. Complainant received possession letter dated 19.11.2010 along with final statement of account by which Rs.18,98,129.50 was demanded. After correspondence, complainant sent cheque of Rs. 16,25,524/- which was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds then complainant got bank draft prepared for aforesaid amount, but OP returned draft and demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- more. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before learned State Commission. OP resisted complaint, admitted allotment of plot in favour of Mr. Anil Kumar and transferring plot in favour of complainant and her husband. It was further submitted that as cheque of complainant was dishonoured, allotment was cancelled, but complainant again approached OP for revocation of cancellation with demand draft of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Later on, cheque of Rs.16,25,524/- given by complainant was also bounced; so, again allotment was cancelled. It was further submitted that complainant along with her husband was allotted residential plot no. 680 of 1000 sq. yds. and they deposited Rs.60,50,000/-. Complainant obtained possession on 20.5.2011, but no construction was raised. Complainant's husband purchased rights of Madhur Taneja of another plot measuring 250 sq. yds. in the same project which was transferred in his name, but later on complainant's husband sold this plot to Ravneet Singh on 7.5.2011 after taking premium. It was further submitted that complainant purchased another plot no. 605 measuring 250 sq. yds. in the same project from Manpreet Singh which was transferred in the name of complainant. It was further submitted that complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party Naresh Ghai, husband of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint as complainant does not fall within purview of consumer and liberty was given to approach competent civil court against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. As there is delay of only 3 days in filing appeal, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that no doubt, complainant and her husband had taken four plots in OP's project, but they were for themselves, their son, their brother and their sister and only disputed plot was purchased by complainant; even then learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide complaint on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.
6. It is admitted case of the complainant that disputed plot was purchased by complainant along with her husband, but complaint has been filed by the complainant without impleading her husband as a party and in such circumstances for non-rejoinder of necessary Party, complaint was not maintainable.
7. It is admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that complainant and her husband had taken four plots including disputed plot. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention towards complaint elaboration dated 31.1.2013 in which it was mentioned that other three plots were taken for complainant's husband, complainant's husband's sister and brother. No evidence has been placed on record to substantiate that other two plots were taken for complainant's husband's handicapped sister and brother Darshan. Had it been taken for them, allotment of these plots should have been in the name of complainant's husband, brother and sister and in absence of allotment in their favour it cannot be presumed that complainant's husband purchased plots for his brother and sister. Admittedly, disputed plot is in the name of complainant and her husband and another one plot is in the name of her husband and when complainant and her husband have taken two plots in same project of OP, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer and learned State Commission has not committed any error in holding that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer under the C.P. Act.
8. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER