State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C.S.Grewal vs M/S Taneja Developers And ... on 4 April, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2016
Date of institution : 05.01.2016
Date of decision : 04.04.2016
C.S. Grewal S/o late Sh. Nand Singh, R/o House No.6CX, Srishti
Apartments, Plot No.56, Sector 56, Gurgaon, 122011.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructures Ltd., Regional Office
at SCO No.1098-1099, First Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh,
through its Regional Manager.
2. M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructures Ltd. and Head Office
at 9 , Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi,
through its Manager.
3. M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructures Ltd., Site Office at
Sector 117-118, Greater Mohali, S.A.S. Nagar, through its Site
Manager.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section
17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Shri T.S. Grewal, Advocate JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to allot the plot and give the possession thereof to him; Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2016 2
ii) to pay Rs.60,000/-, as compensation for the harassment, mental pain, agony, hardship and loss suffered by him;
iii) to pay Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the negligence and deficiency in service on their part; and
iv) to pay Rs.50,000/-, as litigation expenses.
He alleged therein that opposite party No.2 is a builder and developer and it launched the residential colony area in Sector 110-111, Mohali; for which the opposite parties invited applications/Registration Forms. He applied for the allotment of a plot of the size of 250 square yards and deposited Rs.6,87,500/-. He signed the Advance/Registration Form on 02.02.2008. For the amount, which was so deposited by him, receipt dated 08.04.2008 was issued. The terms and conditions were mentioned in the Advance/Registration Form and the agreed price of the plot was Rs.11,000/- per square yard. After making the above said payment, he had been regularly asking about the development status of the project, but the opposite party kept on changing its address and no reply was given. On 27.03.2009, he made an attempt, through e- mail at the mailing address of the opposite parties, to know the status of the project and about the intimation regarding the remaining payment. The opposite parties did not respond. He wrote letters dated 10.01.2011, 06.04.2011 and 07.04.2011 and sent the same to the opposite parties, through Registered Post, but even those were not responded by them. They even did not provide new address; for which he had been sending the e-mails. On account of all these acts of omission on the part of the opposite parties, he filed complaint on Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2016 3 11.12.2011 before the District Forum, Mohali, which was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to allot the plot of 250 square yards to him in any of their project at Mohali and to deliver the letter of allotment to him. He was also awarded compensation and litigation costs. The opposite parties challenged that order before this Commission, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum to pass that order. That order was set aside, on the ground that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction. Against that order dated 03.08.2015, he filed revision petition before the Hon'ble National Commission and got the same dismissed, vide order dated 02.11.2015. Now he has filed the present complaint for issuance of aforesaid directions to the opposite parties, on account of the non- allotment of plot, in-spite of his having applied for the same, by depositing requisite amount and for unfair trade practice adopted by them.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the documents annexed therewith.
3. It is the case of the complainant himself that he had only applied for a plot of 250 square yards to the opposite parties, but no allotment was made in his favour. The question arises, whether in the absence of any such allotment he becomes a consumer, merely on the basis of having applied for the allotment of the plot by depositing the initial amount?
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant hired the service of the opposite parties, by applying for the plot and the non-allotment of the plot itself Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2016 4 amounts to deficiency in service. In support of that argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, reported in 2013 (4) CPJ 144 (Harminder Kaur, Mandeep Kaur Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.).
5. The facts of the case, in which the above said judgment was passed, were different. In that case, the complainants had applied for the allotment of plots in the scheme floated by the opposite parties and deposited the requisite earnest money. The allotment was to be done by draw of lots, which took place on 19.06.2006, but both the complainants were not successful in the draw of lots. The opposite parties failed to refund the earnest money, despite several letters written by them. Thereafter, they approached the District Forum for issuance of direction to the opposite parties for the refund of their money, along with interest. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the acceptance of the earnest money by the opposite parties itself shows that they had agreed to provide the service of the draw of lots and, in case of the complainants being successful, to allot the plot to them and, as such, they are squarely covered under the definition of "consumer", as defined in the Act.
6. We would have certainly applied the ratio of this judgment in the present case also, had the complainant filed the complaint for issuance of direction to the opposite parties for the refund of the money, so deposited by him. He has prayed for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to allot a plot and to give the possession thereof to him. He was to become entitled to that service, in case the plot had been allotted to him by the opposite parties. The present Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2016 5 case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in R.P. No.752 of 2011 decided on 07.04.2015 and reported in 2015 (2) CLT 266 (Kamlesh Gulati Vs. HUDA and Another). The relevant portion of that judgment is reproduced below:-
9. The next question arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner is a consumer within the definition of consumer. Undisputedly, the petitioner had applied for allotment of plot and his application had not matured into allotment. Thus, it cannot be said that a contract of providing service had come into existence between the petitioner and the opposite party. That being the case, the State Commission has rightly held in the light of the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Another Vs. Krishan Pal Chander, 2010 (2) CLT 546 (NC)= 2010 CTJ 415 (CP) that the petitioner is not a consumer and as such he had no right to maintain the consumer complaint.
7. In view of our above discussion, we conclude that the complainant does not fall under the definition of the "consumer" and his complaint is not maintainable under Section 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The same is dismissed accordingly.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER April 04, 2016.
(Gurmeet S)