State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajiv Singla And Another vs Teneja Developers And Infrastructure ... on 13 July, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application Nos.1577 of 2018
And
Misc. Application No.689 of 2019
In/and
Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018
Date of institution : 15.06.2018
Reserved On : 07.07.2020
Date of decision : 13.07.2020
1.Rajiv Singla S/o Sh. Hari Chand;
2. Rahul Dhariwal S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Dhariwal;
Correspondence Address:
House No.2831, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.
....Complainants Versus
1. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., Regd. Office: 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001, through its Manager.
IInd Address:
Taneje Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. TDI City, Mile Stone, 10- 11, NH21, Chandigarh-Kharar Road, Mohali.
2. Ravinder Kumar Taneja, Director, Taneje Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. TDI City, Mile Stone, 10-11, NH21, Chandigarh-Kharar Road, Mohali.
3. Renu Taneja, Director, Taneje Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.
TDI City, Mile Stone, 10-11, NH21, Chandigarh-Kharar Road, Mohali.
....Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:
For the complainants : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate For the opposite parties : None.Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 2
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The complainants have filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:
i) to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the complainants, immediately without asking for illegal charges not related to execution of registered Sale Deed;
ii) to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the deposited amount from 23.09.2011 (agreed date of possession) till issuance of Completion Certificate in their favour, pertaining to the plot, in question;
iii) to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainants; and
iv) to pay ₹1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.
v) It has also been prayed that any other relief, as may be deemed fit in view of facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.
Facts of the Complaint
2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the opposite parties made various catchy advertisements through newspapers, media, marketing e-mails and telemarketing qua launching of their project namely "TDI City", situated at Mohali-Kharar Road, Punjab. The complainants are good family friends and they planned to purchase a plot in order to construct their own house with a purpose to share floors thereof. A meeting was held between the Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 3 complainants and opposite parties, in which they assured that estimated period for delivery of possession would be two years from the date of allotment. The opposite parties informed that plot No.2076, measuring 250 sq.yds. was lying for sale, as the previous allottee was not interested to retain the same. Believing the opposite parties, they agreed to purchase the said plot and paid booking amount of ₹3,50,000/-, vide receipt dated 20.09.2005 Ex.C-1. The opposite parties received a total sum of ₹14,75,000/- from the previous allottee on various dates up to 05.03.2009, as per details given in para-10 of the complaint. The first allottee kept on approaching them to know status of development and construction, but false assurances were being made every time. Ultimately, the opposite parties sent letter dated 21.07.2009, Ex.C-10, vide which residential plot No.2076, measuring 250 sq.yds. was allotted to the complainants. They acknowledged the receipt of documents for transfer of the plot in the name of the complainants and issued certificate to this effect. The opposite parties kept on receiving various amounts from the complainants, without obtaining requisite permissions and approvals from the competent authorities. Buyer's Agreement was executed on 08.01.2014, which was heavily loaded with terms and conditions in favour of the opposite parties. No specific date of possession was mentioned therein, which amounts to violation of the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA"). Basic cost of the plot was ₹17,37,500/- at the rate of ₹6,950/- per sq.yd. A sum of ₹1,650/- per sq.yd. was quantified towards EDC and, as such, the total cost of the plot was ₹21,50,000/-. Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 4 The complainants paid a total sum of ₹23,44,500/- to the opposite parties towards the price of the plot till the date of filing of the complaint, as per paras-10 to 14 of the complaint. They issued possession letter dated 06.02.2016, stating that they were in possession of all requisite permissions/approvals. It was assured that all the basic amenities at the site were complete. However, the complainants were not shown the site as well as plot prior to issuance of that letter. The opposite parties had also not obtained Completion Certificate till then and, as such, the offer of possession was just a paper transaction. It was further averred that the possession was due on 23.09.2011 and offer of illegal paper possession is sufficient to prove unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainants received letter dated 14.03.2017 from the opposite parties, mentioning completion of club and they were asked to collect membership card. It was also mentioned therein that subscription fee was ₹3,600/-. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued letter dated 06.12.2017, stating that the possession was offered on 26.09.2011 and that the complainants had to complete the construction till 25.09.2014, but that period had already been expired. However, they asked the complainants to commence the construction on the plot before 31.03.2018 after getting approvals of the competent authorities. Since the opposite parties were not having requisite approvals on 26.09.2011, so there was no question of offering possession of the plot in the year 2011. The complainants issued legal notice dated 29.03.2018 for execution of Conveyance Deed/Registered Sale Deed, but no reply was received thereto. However, the opposite parties had Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 5 issued Statement of Account dated 16.03.2018, mentioning receipt of ₹21,50,000/- from the complainants and date of possession as 23.09.2011. The complainants visited the office of the opposite parties various times to get the Sale Deed executed in their favour. However, they demanded illegal charges under the garb of club charges and CAM charges in order to get the Sale Deed registered. The complainants wrote e-mail dated 29.03.2018, raising their grouses; but they again sent vague reply about offer of possession on 26.09.2011. The complainants had produced photographs Ex.C-31/1 to Ex.C-31/7 on record, showing non-development at the site. The opposite parties are habitual defaulters and they planned to collect money from the buyers on false assurances. It is settled that if the builder/developer receives amount without obtaining permissions and approvals, the buyer can seek refund of the deposited amount, along with interest and other reliefs. The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. It is based on misrepresentation, wrong facts and concealment of true facts. The Government of Punjab, with a view to attract new investment in the State, formulated Industrial Policy, 2003 and Housing and Urban Development were also made the subjects of the said Policy. In view of that Policy, the opposite party-Company had already started the process of purchasing the land to set-up the Mega Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 6 Housing Project in Village Ballomajra, Mohali, even before submission of application in respect of the plot, in question, by previous allottee. Its proposal to develop an area of 160 acres of land with an investment of ₹266.50 Crore was accepted by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce and 'Letter of Intent' was issued in favour of the Company on 21.12.2005. As per terms of the said policy, the Punjab Government, apart from laying down certain conditions in the Letter of Intent, vide agreement executed with the Company, accorded various concessions subject to the conditions, one of which was that the residential project at the location specified must be of 100 acres or above at a single geographical location and shall be developed in contiguity. The Punjab Government agreed to make acquisition of land for the Company under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the extent of 10% of the total area of the Project, as it wanted the development in contiguity and to facilitate the Company to fill up 'Critical Gap' of the land, which the Company was unable to acquire directly from the land owners. The Layout and Zoning Plans regarding the development works to be executed by the opposite party-Company were made subject to the approval of competent authority. The Company was required to pay development charges, in accordance with the provisions of PAPRA. It was also required to comply with provisions of Section 5(9) of PAPRA. The buildings plans are regulated by the competent authority under the provisions of the Punjab Urban Development and Planning Authority, Building Rules, 1995. While the company was developing the said project, various persons, including one Sh. Dapinder Singh, came forward to make Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 7 investments by getting himself registered for allotment in the said township project and was conferred with registration rights in respect of a residential plot measuring 250 Sq. yds. in future project of the Company in consideration of ₹3,50,000/-, vide cheque No.034165 dated 17.08.2005. Later on Sh. Dapinder Singh sold his rights to one Sh. Randhir Singh, who was allotted residential plot No.2076, measuring 250 sq.yds., vide allotment letter dated 21.07.2009. The above said allotment letter was issued, as per tentative Layout Plans, which was subject to variation, addition, alteration and modification therein on instructions of regulatory authority, including the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Punjab. The complainants purchased the allotment rights of said plot from Sh. Randhir Singh on 04.05.2010 and stepped into the shoes of previous allottees. The opposite parties issued demand letters and reminders dated 14.12.2009, 24.02.2010, 15.04.2010 and 21.01.2010, Ex.OP-1/7 to Ex.OP-1/10, to the complainants. Plot, in question, was ready for possession and offer of possession letter 26.09.2011 Ex.OP-1/11 was also issued to the complainants, requesting them to clear the outstanding dues. The Company had already delivered the possession to many customers in Sectors 117 and 118. Buyer's Agreement Ex.OP-1/12 was also executed between the parties on 08.01.2014. Detailed guidelines/procedure had been worked out as per Government of Punjab Notification dated 02.09.2014, vide No.4966- CTP (Pb)/SP-458 Ex.OP-1/13; which provides as under:
"Whereas the development of colonies, Mega Housing Project, have been approved under the provisions of the Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995, Mega Housing Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 8 Policy. However, the present frame work does not provide the clear procedure to issue completion or partial completion to such projects. A number of approved projects in the state are awaiting issue of completion/partial certificate which is causing hardship to promoters & residents of such projects for the maintenance & upkeep of public utilities & services."
The opposite party-Company, who was developing a Mega Housing Project, prior to commencement of above said notification dated 02.09.2014, was not supposed to get any Completion or Partial Completion Certificate from the competent authorities, as its project was exempted under Section 44 of PAPRA. Furthermore, in the said Notification, it is nowhere specified that obtaining of Partial Completion Certificate of Completion Certificate is a pre-requisite for offering possession. However, the Company applied for Partial Completion Certificate to facilitate its customers; which has been issued, vide letter dated 24.06.2015 Ex.OP-1/14. As per Clause 21 of the agreement, the complainants were required to start the construction on the plot, in question, within a period of three years from the date of offer of possession. The Company sent letter dated 06.12.2017 Ex.OP-1/15 regarding delay in raising construction on the plot. Another letter dated 11.12.2017 Ex.OP-1/16 (colly.) for execution and registration of Sale/ Conveyance Deed was also sent. It was further pleaded that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint, because as per terms of the agreement, jurisdiction of all other Courts, except Courts at Delhi, has been excluded. The complainants are not 'potential user' of the plot, in question, and they purchased the same for investment purposes by re-selling the same. Thus, they cannot be termed as 'consumer', as defined in Section 2 (1) Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 9
(d) of the Act. On merits, pleas raised in preliminary objections were reiterated. It was further pleaded that the Company has always possessed all the required permissions and at no point of time any violation was ever made by it. The project of the Company is exempted from application of provisions of PAPRA. The total sale cost of the plot is ₹21,50,000/-, excluding the transfer charges, club membership and other expenses of maintenance. Averments of Paras No.10 to 14 of complaint, including payments made by the complainants, were stated to be wrong. It was further pleaded that the Company has finished the construction of club building long ago and the same is being used by the apartment owners for recreational activities. The complainants and every other allottee or owner of apartment in the said project, who has paid for availing service of club, is entitled to enjoy the benefits thereof. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Evidence of the Parties
4. To prove their claim, the complainants tendered affidavits of complainants No.1 & 2 as Ex.C-A and Ex.C-B, along with copies of documents i.e. payment receipts Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-22, allotment letter dated 21.07.2009 Ex.C-10, Buyer's Agreement dated 08.01.2014 Ex.C-23, possession letter dated 06.02.2016 Ex.C-24, letters Ex.C-25 to Ex.C-27, Account Statement Ex.C-28, e-mail dated 29.03.2018 Ex.C-29, reply dated 13.04.2018 Ex.C-30 and photographs Ex.C-31 (colly.).
Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 10
5. The opposite parties, in support of their defence, tendered affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kumar, Manager-Legal, Ex.OP-1/A, along with copies of documents i.e. Letter of Intent dated 21.12.2015 Ex.OP-1/1, agreement dated 26.05.2006 Ex.OP-1/2, notification dated 11.04.2008 Ex.OP-1/3, advance registration form Ex.OP-1/4, letter dated 21.07.2009 along with terms and conditions Ex.OP-1/5 (colly.), certificate of transfer of plot dated 04.05.2010 Ex.OP-1/6, demand letters/reminders Ex.OP-1/7 to Ex.OP-1/10, offer of possession letter dated 26.09.2011 Ex.OP-1/11, Buyer's Agreement dated 08.01.2014 Ex.OP-1/12, notification dated 02.09.2014 Ex.OP-1/13, certificate dated 24.06.2015 Ex.OP-1/14, letter dated 06.12.2017 Ex.OP-1/15 and letter dated 11.12.2017 Ex.OP-1/16.
Contentions of the Parties
6. I have heard learned counsel for the complainants, as none has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties at the time of arguments. However, I have perused the written arguments submitted by both the parties and the record carefully.
7. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainants are on the lines of the complaint. The sum and substance of the written arguments is that at the time of offer of possession on 26.09.2011, the opposite parties were not in possession of Completion Certificate and requisite approvals. The opposite parties alleged that the possession was offered on 26.09.2011, but it was never offered on that date or thereafter. They obtained only the Partial Completion Certificate on 24.06.2015, However, since there was no development at site and the opposite Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 11 parties had not obtained the requisite approvals for setting up the project, so the complainants did not take the possession. Ultimately, the possession was delivered on 06.02.2016, but without Completion Certificate, which is violation of provisions of PAPRA. The opposite parties sent letter dated 06.12.2017, wrongly stating that possession was offered on 26.09.2011 and told that the complainants were to complete the construction till 25.09.2014, but they extended that period and asked them to complete the construction till 31.03.2018. However, neither any compensation for delay in delivery of possession was paid, nor the Sale Deed of the plot was executed despite repeated requests. The complainants sent legal notice dated 29.03.2018 asking them to execute the Sale Deed, but to no effect. Hence, due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants are entitled to all the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the complainants relied upon following case:
i) CC No.828 of 2019 (Ranjit Singh v. TDI Infratech Ltd. & Ors.) decided by this Commission, vide order dated 04.03.2020; and
ii) CC No.264 of 2019 (Maya Pandey v. DLF India Limited & Ors.) decided by this Commission, vide order dated 30.09.2019.
8. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties are also on the lines of reply filed by them. It was further contended therein that the complaint is not maintainable and it is based on mis-representation and concealment of facts. Before submitting application for allotment, the opposite party-Company had already initiated the process of purchasing land to set up Mega Housing Project in village Ballomajra (Mohali). All the requisite Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 12 approvals were obtained from the competent authorities in advance and building plans were also regulated by the competent authorities. The complainants failed to pay the due instalments and committed default, despite sending various demand notices by the opposite parties. The opposite party-Company is not supposed to obtain Completion or Partial Completion Certificate, as it is exempted from doing so, as per provisions of PAPRA. However, the Partial Completion Certificate dated 24.06.2015 has been duly obtained by it. As per Clause 21 of the agreement, the complainants were required to start the construction on the plot within 3 years from the date of offer of possession. The opposite parties sent letter dated 06.12.2017 regarding delay in raising construction on the part of the complainants. Letter for execution and registration of Sale/Conveyance Deed has also been sent on 11.12.2017. The complaint is barred by limitation. The allegations levelled in the complaint do not constitute a 'complaint' within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties.
Misc. Application No.1577 of 2018 (Joint Complaint)
10. Before going into the merits of the case, I would like to deal with the application filed by the complainants, under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, seeking permission to file joint complaint. It is alleged in the application that the plot, in question, was purchased by the complainants jointly and they have not filed any other complaint in this Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 13 Commission or any other Court, in respect of the said plot. It was prayed that permission may be granted to the complainants to file joint complaint.
11. It needs to be noticed that the application has been filed by two persons, having no blood relationship established on the record. In the complaint, it is alleged that the complainants are family friends and they planned to purchase a plot in order to construct their own house with a purpose to share floors. However, mere averment about friendship of the complainants, without any authentic proof in support thereof, cannot be believed. Moreover, it is a matter of great suspicion that how two stranger families can adjust themselves in one plot, which the complainants got allotted by transfer in their names jointly. Virtually, this is only one cause of action arisen from transfer letter dated 04.05.2010, Ex.C-15 and Buyer's Agreement dated 08.01.2014, Ex.C-23. Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act reads as follows:
"12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.--(1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by - - - - - - - - - - - -
---------------------------------------------
(c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested."
Bare reading of Section 12 of the Act makes it clear that where there are numerous consumers, having the same interest, they can file such an application for seeking permission to file joint complaint. Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 14
12. As already discussed above, the transfer letter dated 04.05.2010, Ex.C-15 and Buyer's Agreement dated 08.01.2014, Ex.C- 23, have been issued in the name of both the complainants, but they failed to fulfil the ingredients of a joint complaint, as per Section 12 (1)
(c) of the Act. The present complaint is not a representative suit as provided under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. It is only one complaint regarding one plot and not different complaints by different complainants having similar interests. Facts were similar in Consumer Complaint No.757 of 2019 (Mr. Varinder Singh & Ors. v. C & C Towers Ltd. & Ors.), decided by this Commission on 29.10.2019, in which it was held that no blood relationship between the complainants has been proved on the record. Mere averment about friendship of the complainants, without any authentic proof in support thereof, cannot be believed. Similar observations were made by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.684 of 2018 (Harminder Kaur & Anr. v. C & C Towers Ltd. & Ors.) decided on 01.03.2019 and Consumer Complaint No.587 of 2018 (Mandip Singh & Anr. v. BCL Homes Limited & Ors.) decided on 06.03.2020 and both those complaints were dismissed. Therefore, no permission can be granted to the complainants to file complaint.
13. In view of my above discussion as well as provisions of Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, the Misc. Application No.1577 of 2018 is dismissed, being not maintainable.
Main Case
14. Now, coming to merits of the main case, admittedly possession of the plot, in question, was offered, vide letter dated Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 15 26.09.2011 Ex.OP-11, subject to payment of outstanding amount as per Final Statement of Account annexed therewith. However, the complainants did not take possession of the plot, by paying the due amount, for about five years for the reasons best known to them. Ultimately, the possession of the plot was delivered to the complainants, vide Possession Letter dated 06.02.2016 Ex.C-24; which is endorsed by complainant No.1, stating to have received the possession. The present complaint has been filed on 15.06.2018 i.e. after two years and four months from the date of taking the possession; which is clearly time barred. No application has been filed, along with the complaint, seeking condonation of delay. Section 24-A of the Act lays down that the Consumer Forum shall not entertain a complaint, unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) (AIR) (2009) SC 2210 observed in Para No.8 as under:-
"8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 16 would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."
15. This view of law was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as "V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes" 2011 CTJ 1 (SUPREME COURT) (CP). It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under Section 24A(1). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the recent judgments in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 5 SCC 121 and Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company v. National Insurance Company and Another, 2009 CTJ 951 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 7 SCC 768."
16. Still further, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Arbitration Appeal No.6 of 2007 "State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Anr." decided on 01.02.2013 held in Para No.32 as follows:
"32. In my view, refusal to pay the amount demanded by the petitioner, would not commence fresh period of limitation which had already commenced.
In view of Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963, once time is begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it. Once time starts, it does not stop. Limitation is extended only when there is an acknowledgment of liability or part payment. Correspondence does not extend the period of limitation."Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 17
17. Similarly, in United Bank of India vs. Janata Paradise Hotel and Restaurant, IV (2014) CPJ 383 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed as under:-
"6..........This argument is devoid of force because correspondence does not extend limitation, particularly, when first request for refund is made after claim became time- barred. In this matter, claim became time barred in the year 1995 and letter has been written on 18.11.2007. Complainant has not placed any letter from 1995 to 2007 and, thus claim being barred by limitation, learned District Form committed error in allowing complaint."
In the present case also, firstly the cause of action arose to the complainants on 26.09.2011, when the possession was offered and secondly on 06.02.2016, when they took physical possession of the plot. If they were so aggrieved by non-obtaining of Completion Certificate by the opposite party or otherwise, they should have raised that issue at the time of taking the possession, but they did not raise any such objection or protest then and there and filed this complaint after a period of more than two years from taking the possession. It is also settled that mere correspondence took place between the parties after delivery of possession will not extend the limitation, in the absence of specific protest lodged at the time of taking the possession.
18. In view of the ratio of the law laid down in the above noted authorities, the present complaint is hopelessly time barred.
19. Even otherwise, the purchase of plot by the complainants, who are proved to be strangers, clearly appears to be an investment proposition for speculative purposes in order to gain profits by reselling the plot. Hon'ble National Commission in Consumer Case No.2121 of 2016 (Dr. Hemant & Anr. v. M/s Zenal Construction Private Limited Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2018 18 & Anr.), decided, vide order dated 23.02.2017, held that booking a property for earning profits amounts to commercial purpose and hence the complainants were held to be not 'consumer', as defined in the Act. In the present complaint, since it is proved that the complainants purchased the plot for commercial purpose, so they cannot be treated as 'consumers', as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Therefore, they have no locus standi to file the present complaint.
20. In view of my above discussion, the complaint is dismissed, being barred by limitation and not maintainable. However, the complainants are at liberty to avail any other legal remedy, in accordance with law.
21. Since the complaint has been dismissed, so Misc. Application No.689 of 2019 filed by the opposite parties for dismissal of the complaint, in view of Section 79 reach with Section 89 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.
22. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT July 13, 2020.
(Gurmeet S)