State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satinder Pal Singh vs Unitech Limited on 10 June, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
1. Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015
Date of institution : 23.01.2015
Date of decision : 10.06.2016
1. Mr. Satinder Pal Singh s/o Late Shri Durlabh Singh, resident of
C 32, Kailash Apartments, Lala Lajpat Rai Road, New Delhi-
110 048.
2. Ms. Uppinder Kaur D/o Late Shri Durlabh Singh, resident of C
32, Kailash Apartments, Lala Lajpat Rai Road, New Delhi-110
048.
.......Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Unitech Limited Real Estate Division (Marketing), 5th Floor,
Tower 'A', Signature Towers, South City, NH-8, Gurgaon 122
001 through its Managing Director-Partner.
2. M/s Unitech Limited, SCO No.189-191, Sector 17-C,
Chandigarh.
3. M/s Bhuvan Developers Pvt. Ltd., 414A, Naurang House, 21,
K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001.
........Opposite Parties
2. Consumer Complaint No.17 of 2015
Date of institution : 23.01.2015
Date of decision : .06.2016
1. Mr. Satinder Pal Singh s/o Late Shri Durlabh Singh, resident of
C 32, Kailash Apartments, Lala Lajpat Rai Road, New Delhi-
110 048.
Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 2
2. Mrs. Patricia Conlon Chadha W/o Mr. Satinder Pal Singh,
resident of C 32, Kailash Apartments, Lala Lajpat Rai Road, New
Delhi-110 0048.
.......Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Unitech Limited Real Estate Division (Marketing), 5th Floor,
Tower 'A', Signature Towers, South City, NH-8, Gurgaon 122
001 through its Managing Director-Partner.
2. M/s Unitech Limited, SCO No.189-191, Sector 17-C,
Chandigarh.
3. M/s Karmanya Facility Company, Plot No.123, Nitikhand II,
IndraPuram, Gaziabad through its Managing Director.
........Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaints under Section
17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the complainants : Shri B.S. Patwalia, Advocate. For opposite parties No.1&2: Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate.
For opposite party No.3 : Ex parte.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
In view of the peculiar facts of the above noted complaints and in view of one of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the same complainants made investment in two plots; which takes them out of the definition of the 'consumer', these complaints are being decided by same order. Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 3
2. The first complaint (CC No.16 of 2015) has been filed by Satinder Pal Singh and his sister Ms. Uppinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as "the first set of complainants") under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") in respect of Plot No.82 measuring 502.32 square yards situated in Block-B (BOULEVARD), Sector 107, Uniworld City, Mohali, which they agreed to purchase for Rs.71,58,060/-, vide Agreement dated 18.4.2008 and the second complaint (CC No.17 of 2015) has been filed by same Satinder Pal Singh and his wife Mrs. Patricia Conlon Chadha (hereinafter referred to as "the second set of complainants") under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of Plot No.104 measuring 502.32 square yards situated in Block C (BOULEVARD), Sector 107, Uniworld City, Mohali, which they agreed to purchase for Rs.74,72,010/-, vide Agreement dated 5.5.2008. All other facts, so stated in the complaints, are similar and even the directions so sought against the opposite parties are also the same, except that in the first complaint the complainants are seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.69,04,547/-, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, whereas in the second complaint they are seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.72,18,060/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The other directions being sought by them against the opposite parties in both the complaints are:
i) to pay Rs.2,00,000/-, for the mental harassment and agony;Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 4
ii) to pay Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation under the other heads; and
iii) to pay Rs.1,50,000/-, as cost of litigation.
3. As per the allegations made in the complaints, opposite party No.1 introduced a Mega Project to be developed on the land situated in Sector 97, 106 and 107, Mohali, Punjab, under the name UNIWORLD CITY, Mohali and it offered independent floors/plots/villas and apartments. It was in partnership with opposite party No.3, who was acting as its Agent/Representative and was selling and promoting the said Project. In the year 2006 they were searching for accommodation for their personal use in and around Chandigarh and in the course of that search they came across the advertisement; which was issued by the opposite parties and they got interested in the plots being offered in the Project. After careful verification, the Project was found approved by the Punjab Government and appeared to be excellent investment in the vicinity of City Beautiful. They got in touch with opposite party No.3 for the purchase of plots of 500 square yards. They fell in the trap on the false assurance having been given to them that the Project so developed by the opposite parties was the finest development taking place around Chandigarh. The first set of complainants issued two cheques of Rs.12,50,000/- on 27.2.2006 for purchasing the said plot whereas the second set of complainants issued two cheques of Rs.12,50,000/- dated 3.2.2006 and 25.2.2006 for purchasing the other plot. On the payments of those amounts opposite party No.3 Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 5 (M/s Bhuvan Developers Pvt. Ltd.) in the first complaint and (M/s Karmanya Facility Company) in the second complaint transferred the plots in their names and they were allured to sign pre-paid applications, vide which they were required to be registered themselves for provisional allotment of the residential plots. It was only thereafter that the said plots were provisionally registered in their names. Thereafter the above noted Agreements were executed in their favour. As per Article 4(a)(i) of those Agreements, the possession of the plots was to be delivered to them within a period of 36 months from the dates of the signing of those Agreements and the instalments to be paid by them were also detailed therein. The first set of complainants continued to pay those instalments from 27.2.2006 to 1.9.2010; which are detailed in the following table:
Sr. No. Cheque No. Date Amount in Rs.
01. Pay Order 27.02.2006 12,50,000/-
No.037417 &
574328
02. 197529 27.02.2008 6,33,700/-
03. 197348 26.05.2008 8,47,665/-
04. 702852 29.08.2008 8,47,665/-
05. 627650 17.11.2008 8,47,665/-
06. 627787 24.02.2009 5,63,715/-
07. 635604 29.05.2009 3,13,950/-
08. 635611 19.06.2009 30,000/-
Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 6
09. 629273 24.08.2009 3,13,950/-
10. 629435 16.11.2009 3,13,950/-
11. 629526 25.02.2010 3,13,950/-
12. 629634 01.06.2010 3,13,950/-
13. 629637 01.09.2010 3,13,950/-
14. Waiver of 29.08.2008 437/-
Interest
TOTAL: 69,04,547/-
Similarly the second set of complainants had been making payments constantly from 3.2.2006 to 1.9.2010 and the same are depicted in the following table:
Sr. Cheque No. Date Amount in
No. Rs.
1. Unitech reference 22.04.2008 18,83,700/-
No.UL:RED:NRBV/000120
(transfer from BUM0232)
2. 197345 26.05.2008 10,04,640/-
3. 702853 29.08.2008 10,04,640/-
4. 627649 17.11.2008 8,47,665/-
5. 627786 25.02.2009 5,63,715/-
6. 635602 29.05.2009 3,13,950/-
7. 635613 19.06.2009 30,000/-
8. 629274 24.08.2009 3,13,950/-
9. 629433 23.11.2009 3,13,950/-
10. 629525 25.02.2010 3,13,950/-
Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 7
11. 629635 01.06.2010 3,13,950/-
12. 629636 01.09.2010 3,13,950/-
Total 72,18,060/-
In this way the first set of complainants in all paid Rs.69,04,547/- against the total amount of Rs.71,58,060/-, whereas the second set of complainants have already paid Rs.72,18,060/- against the total amount payable. After the completion of the period of 36 months they had been making repeated attempts for getting the possession of the plots as the same were not delivered to them within the stipulated time. The same was never delivered even upto the dates of filing of the complaints, though they had been running from pillar to post to get the possession and also got served legal notices dated 2.9.2014. They are consumers as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and, as such, are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaints.
4. The complaints were contested by opposite parties No.1 and 2 by filing detailed written replies. However, they have taken up similar pleas in both the written replies. In those written replies they did not dispute that a Mega Project by the name of Uniworld City to be developed in Sector 97, 106 and 107, Mohali, was introduced by opposite party No.1. They admitted that the amounts so mentioned in the complaints were received by them and the Agreements so find mentioned in the complaints were signed between the parties and that as per clause 4(a)(i) thereof, the possession of the plots was to be delivered to both the sets of the complainants within 36 months Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 8 and that the same was not delivered to them. They averred that both the sets of complainants do not fall under the definition of the 'consumer' as it was Satinder Pal Singh, complainant No.1, in both the complaints, who bought the plots; the first plot along with his sister and the second plot along with his wife. He could not have bought two plots for his own residential purposes and it was the investment made by him. All the complainants are residents of Delhi and they have not disclosed any reason as to for what purpose they wanted the property at Mohali and why they wanted to shift to this place. As made out from the documents, their age varies from 60 to 63 years and it cannot be envisaged by any stretch of imagination that at this juncture of their life that they would buy the property for a purpose other than investment by way of resale. As a person would prefer to stay in a well developed locality with all facilities in the near vicinity, so it cannot be imagined that the complainants wanted to leave the well developed area of New Delhi and wanted to shift to undeveloped area of Mohali. They are simply investors and the complaints have been filed as they could not re-sale the plots due to slump in the real estate market. They themselves have admitted in the complaints that it seemed to them that the purchase of plots was excellent investment in the vicinity of Chandigarh. The facts as stated in the complaints do not constitute "consumer dispute", as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and the reliefs which are being sought are not covered under the definition of "consumer dispute". The issues raised relate to the contractual matters arising out of the Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 9 terms and conditions of the Agreements and interpretation thereof and can only be adjudicated upon in civil proceedings. They are not the original allottees. The plot, as mentioned in the first complaint, was initially allotted to opposite party No.3, vide letter dated 23.1.2008. That plot was purchased by first set of complainants from that opposite party and accordingly the allotment thereof was transferred in their names, vide letter dated 29.2.2008. They being re-allottees are not covered under the definition of the 'consumer'. Similarly the other plot mentioned in the second complaint was initially allotted to opposite party No.3, vide allotment letter dated 23.2.2008 and the same was purchased by the second set of complainants from that opposite party and the allotment was transferred in their names, vide letter dated 22.4.2008. Being the re- allottees they are not covered under the definition of 'consumer'. No cause of action has arisen to both the sets of the complainants to file the complaints, as they throughout had been discharging all the services to them in a bona fide manner. They are seeking refund of the amounts deposited by them, which amounts to the breach of the Buyer's Agreements. Clause 8(b) thereof, stipulates that they shall be entitled to the reasonable extension of time in handing over of the possession in case of force majeure circumstances. They have been severely affected by global market recession in real estate market and on that ground they are facing utter financial hardships and the conditions which are beyond their control. There was global meltdown of the economy worldwide wherein the foreign investors, Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 10 as anticipated by them, have refrained from any kind of investment in India and there was total cash crunch throughout. It was on account of those circumstances that the possession of the plots could not be delivered to the complainants. The period so mentioned in the Agreements for delivery of possession for the plots was only a tentative period. They are entitled to the extension of time as per clause 8(b) of the Agreements. The complainants cannot wriggle out of their contractual liability to be fulfilled on their part. All the terms of the Agreements are to be read in toto and the complainants are barred by law to pick and choose the terms and conditions thereof according to their own suitability and to ignore the others according to which they are entitled to the reasonable extension of time for handing over the possession. The complainants cannot claim the refund of the amounts. They never approached them with regard to the possession of the plots and no legal notice was ever received by them from their side. They also averred that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the complainants are not claiming the possession of the plots, which are at Mohali, but are claiming the refund of the amounts and the Buyer's Agreements, under which those amounts are claimed, were executed at New Delhi and the receipts for the payment of the amounts were issued from Gurgaon office. All the payments were made through cheques, which were deposited in the Bank at Delhi. The complaints are beyond the period of limitation so far as the claim of refund is concerned. They themselves have alleged in their complaints that Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 11 the possession was not offered to them till 5.5.2011 and, as such, the cause of action accrued to them on that date and as per Section 24 of the Act, the complaints were required to be filed within two years of the accrual of the cause of action. They are reputed Company and are in real estate market since ages. They never shirked away from their responsibility and are making sincere efforts to hand over the possession of the plots to the complainants at the earliest. The complaints filed by them are not maintainable. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaints.
5. No written reply was filed by the respective opposite party No.3 in the complaints. They moved applications in both the complaints for the deletion of their names from the array of parties on the grounds mentioned in the applications. Those applications were ordered to be taken up after the conclusion of evidence by the parties.
6. In first complaint the complainants for proving the allegations made therein proved on record the affidavit of their General Attorney, Ajit Singh, Ex.CA and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4. On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 and 2 proved on record the affidavit of their authorized representative Lalit Gupta Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/5.
7. In the second complaint the complainants proved on record the affidavit of their General Attorney, Ajit Singh Ex.CA and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 for proving the allegations made in the complaint. On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 and 2 proved on record the Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 12 affidavit of their authorized representative Lalit Gupta Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/4. Opposite party No.3 proved on record the affidavit of its Managing Partner Pankaj Jain Ex.3/A and document Ex.3/1.
8. We have carefully gone through the averments of the parties, the evidence produced by them in support of their respective averments and have heard learned counsel on their behalf.
9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that all the allegations made in the complaints stand proved from the affidavits of Ajit Singh, General Attorney of both sets of the complainants and the documents proved on the record. From that evidence, it is to be inferred that Plot No.82 was purchased by the first set of complainants from opposite parties No.1 and 2, through their agent opposite party No.3, in respect of which Agreement Ex.C2 was executed; which contains all the terms and conditions regarding the sale of plot and all the payments, as mentioned in Annexure-A of that Agreement, were made by that set of complainants on the dates mentioned therein. Having performed their part of the contract they became entitled to the possession of the plot but the same was never delivered to them within 36 months of the execution of the Agreement, as stipulated by clause 4(a) thereof, though they waited for that possession even after the said period. In fact, the opposite parties are not in a position to deliver the possession of the plot as the same has not been developed by them and these complainants have become entitled to the refund of Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 13 the amounts so paid by them and on account of the deficiency in service committed by them by not delivering the possession they are entitled to compensation. From the evidence produced in second complaint, it stands proved that plot No.4 was so allotted to the second set of complainants regarding which the Agreement Ex.C-2 was executed and all the payments, as mentioned in the schedule to that Agreement, were made by those complainants and they became entitled to the possession of the plot, which was to be delivered within 36 months of the execution of the Agreement but was never delivered. The opposite parties are not in a position even to deliver the possession of that plot on account of the non-development at the site and the complainants have become entitled to the refund of the amounts so paid by them, along with compensation which they suffered on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not delivering the possession. It also stands proved from the evidence produced in both the complaints that both the sets of the complainants have purchased the plots for their residence and, as such, it cannot be said that they had made the investment for commercial purpose. They fall under the definition of 'consumer'.
10. On the other hand, while taking up both the complaints together for arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 that it was only Satinder Pal Singh, complainant, who made the investment in two plots and, therefore, he cannot be held to be a 'consumer'. In the first complaint he joined Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 14 his sister as a co-purchaser and in the second complaint he joined his wife as a co-purchaser. All of them are living in posh locality in Delhi, where they have their own house and no evidence has been produced by them for proving that they want to shift from Delhi to Mohali, which is comparatively a city of lower grade. The affidavits of Ajit Singh cannot be considered to be evidence in the absence of the General Power of Attorney, which is alleged to have been executed in his favour by both the sets of the complainants. None of the complainants has proved on record his affidavit for proving the allegations made in the complaints. In fact, they made investment in two plots and, as such, it is to be held that they made it for a "commercial purpose" and, as such, do not fall under the definition of 'consumer'. She further submitted that the opposite parties are in the process of delivering the possession of the plots to the complainants and, as such, it cannot be held that there was deficiency in service on their part. The period of 36 months, so mentioned in the Agreements, was a tentative period and the same was subject to force majeure circumstances. It was on account of the circumstances beyond the control of these opposite parties that they could not develop the plots and deliver the possession thereof to the complainants. There was recession in real estate market and the foreign investors, as expected by the opposite parties, never came forward to invest in India and there was total financial crunch. It was on account of the financial restraints that the opposite parties could not develop the Project and deliver possession of the plots to Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 15 the complainants. When such is the position, it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on their part. In support of her arguments she relied upon the following judgments and prayed for dismissal of the complaints:
i) Consumer Complaint No.111 of 2012 decided on 2.7.2012 by the Hon'ble National Commission (Chilukuri Adarsh v. M/s Ess Ess Vee Constructions);
ii) Consumer Case No.5 of 2014 decided on 3.2.2014 by the Hon'ble National Commission (Shri Sunil Gupta v. M/s Today Homes & Infrastructure (P) Ltd.);
iii) First Appeal No.1219 of 2014 decided on 5.2.2015 by Hon'ble National Commission (Indrajit Dutta v.
Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others);
iv) IV (2007) CPJ 199 (Jagmohan Chabra and another v.
DLF Universal Ltd.);
v) Consumer Case No.270 of 2013 decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 20.3.2014 (Smt. Madhu Saigal & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.); and
vi) 2015 (2) CPJ 344 (NC) (DLF Limited v. Abdul Azim and others).
11. It is now well settled that before taking up the complaints on merits the Foras under the Act are to record a finding as to whether the complainants fall under the definition of the 'consumer' or not? The findings on merits are to be recorded only after the complainants are able to prove that they fall under the definition of 'consumer', as Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 16 contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. In order to determine that question, first we will like to go into the proposition of law; which has been propounded by the learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 that where the complainant has purchased two plots/flats he cannot be held to be a 'consumer'; the transaction being for the purpose of investment and for "commercial purpose". The first judgment in point of time is Chilukuri Adarsh's case (supra). It was held therein that when a 'consumer' has booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounts to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose and, as such, cannot be held to be a 'consumer' under the Act. The next judgment which is dated 3.2.2014 is Sunil Gupta's case (supra). In that case also the controversy was, whether the complainant, who booked more than one units of residential premises can be termed as a consumer or not? It was held therein that it amounts to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose and, as such, he does not fall under the definition of 'consumer'. Both these judgments were followed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Indrajit Dutta's case (supra). In Madhu Saigal's case (supra), which was decided on 20.3.2014, the controversy in question was the same; as to whether the complainant can invest by purchasing more than one apartment from the opposite parties and whether he can be termed as a 'consumer'? It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the consistent view of that Commission is that where the consumer has booked more than one units for residential purpose, it amounts Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 17 to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose. It is also mentioned in that judgment that in Jagmohan Chabra's case (supra) Civil Appeal No.6030-6031 of 2008 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed, vide order dated 29.9.2008. In that judgment other judgments, in which the same view was taken by the Hon'ble National Commission, were also detailed. In Abdul Azim's case (supra), which was decided on 5.2.2015, the same proposition of law was laid down. That was a case of booking of flats in two different Projects by the complainants and it was held that the same was for the purpose of investment and not for the purpose of residence and was for commercial gain through investment and such a person does not fall under the definition of 'consumer'.
12. The proposition of law which emerges from all these judgments is that where a person invests in more than one residential unit, it is to be termed as investment for commercial purpose and he does not fall under the definition of 'consumer'.
13. Now, reverting to the facts of the present complaints. It is a fact that Satinder Pal Singh is the common complainant in both the complaints. In respect of one of the residential plots he joined his sister with him and in respect of the other residential plot he joined his wife. In para no.4 of both the complaints it has been alleged that the complainants in the year 2006 were also searching for accommodation for their personal use in and around Chandigarh and in the course of their search, they came across the advertisement Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 18 being issued by the opposite parties and only thereafter they got interested in the plots being offered by them. There is no allegation in the complaints that they invested in the plots for the purpose of residence. Even if it is inferred from the allegations made in para no.4 of the complaints that they had booked the plots for the purpose of residence, even then on the basis of that allegation such a finding cannot be recorded, as that was duly denied by the opposite parties and there is no evidence for proving that allegation. No doubt, for proving that allegation, in both the complaints affidavits of one Ajit Singh Ex.CA have been proved on the record but the deposition made in those affidavits cannot be looked into as the deponent alleged himself to be the General Attorney of the complainants but no such General Power of Attorney was proved on the record. He did not depose in any of his affidavits that he had personal knowledge of the facts, as stated in the complaints. It is now well settled that an Attorney can depose only about the facts, which are specifically in his knowledge. Only the complainants could have been able to make their statements from their personal knowledge regarding the purpose for which they booked or purchased the plots. From the evidence, it stands proved that investment was made by the same complainants in two residential plots and, as such, it cannot be said that they are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. They booked the plots only for the purpose of investment, which is a commercial purpose and that is Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 19 corroborated from the last sentence of para no.4 of the complaints and which is reproduced below:-
"After careful verification, the complainant found out that the said project was approved by the Govt. of Punjab and at the given time seemed like an excellent investment in the vicinity of City Beautiful."
14. That fact is further corroborated from the contents of the documents proved on the record by the complainants themselves and the averments made by the opposite parties in their written replies, which stand proved by the affidavits of Lalit Gupta, Ex.OP1/A in each complaint. According to the complainants, they purchased the plots through opposite party No.3, as agent of opposite parties No.1 and 2. The contrary position is projected from the evidence produced on the record. The opposite parties proved on record the allotment letter dated 23.1.2008 Ex.OP1/1. A perusal of that allotment letter makes it very much clear that in the first complaint plot in dispute was allotted to M/s Bhuvan Developers Pvt. Ltd., impleaded as opposite party No.3 in that complaint. The complainants themselves proved on record the document Ex.C-1, which consists of a number of pages. A perusal of that document makes it very much clear that said opposite party No.3 had written to opposite parties No.1 and 2 for substituting the name of the first set of complainants in its place and those complainants had given an application for the transfer of the plot in their names. That totally falsifies their stand that they purchased the plot directly from Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 20 opposite parties No.1 and 2 through opposite party No.3. Similar is the position in the second complaint, in which the relevant documents have been proved. The allotment letter Ex.OP-1/1 was in the name of M/s Karmanya Facility Company, impleaded as opposite party No.3 in that complaint regarding plot No.4. That allotment letter is dated 23.1.2008. The complainants themselves proved on record letter dated 12.5.2007 Ex.C-1, vide which they had shown their willingness to this opposite party to apply for future investment opportunities with opposite parties No.1 and 2 keeping in view that it had enough knowledge and expertise in that field. Letter dated 15.5.2007 is also annexed with that letter, which was written to complainant No.1 by opposite party No.3 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.12,50,000/- and accepting their offer. It was only thereafter that opposite party No.3 had written to opposite parties No.1 and 2 for the transfer of the registration of the plot in the names of the complainants and they also moved an application for the transfer of that plot in their favour. In none of those documents, the complainants mentioned that opposite party No.3, in either of the complaints, was an agent of opposite parties No.1 and 2. This totally falsifies their stand that they had purchased the plots through opposite party No.3. In fact, in both the cases the booking of the plots was transferred in their names from the name of opposite party No.3. It becomes clear from the above said documents that the complainants wanted to purchase the plots for the purpose of investment. Therefore, they cannot be held to be consumers within Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 21 the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the complaints filed by them are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed on that ground.
15. In view of the above discussion, both the above said complaints are dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the complainants to approach the appropriate Court/Forum; which while computing the period of limitation for filing the suit/application/petition shall deduct the period during which the complainants were prosecuting these complaints before this Commission.
16. The arguments in these cases were heard on 3.6.2016 and the orders were reserved. Now, the orders be communicated to the parties.
17. The complaints could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER June 10 , 2016 Bansal Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015 22