Ganeshlal vs Shyam on 26 September, 2013
2. The complaint was contested by the OPs who filed written
reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is wholly mis-
conceived, groundless and unsustainable. Hon'ble Commission has
no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in
this complaint, the complaint is manifastely outside the purview of the
Act. The complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law.
The compliant is false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be
dismissed under section 26 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal No. 331 of 2007 titled as Ganeshlal Vs. Shyam
wherein it was held that where there is sale of land simpliciter, it is not
covered under the definition of 'services' or 'deficiency'. The
Consumer Complaint No. 51 of 2014 5
complainant booked one plot of 500 sq. yard @ 9000/- per sq. yds
therefore, he does not come within the definition of 'consumer'. Even
as per the terms and conditions, in case, the complainant after paying
some instalments, not interested to continue, then he will be refunded
the entire amount paid with 8% per annum after three years from the
date of requisition and the complainant has requested for refund on
06.01.2014, therefore, the complaint is pre-mature, whereas the
complainant has concealed the fact regarding the agreed terms and
conditions between the parties and OPs is a registered welfare
society providing cheap and affordable housing facilities to its
members on no profit no loss basis and society accumulated funds
from its members and purchased land under the name of society and
applied for various approval with the statutory authorities. All the
approvals from statutory authorities were received and the society is
in the process of allotment to its eligible members who had paid 90%
instalments. Since the development of the site is under progress, the
condition incorporated with regard to refund with interest is agreed by
all its members and that the OPs had to pay hefty amounts to
statutory authorities for various approvals and in case members are
allowed to take refund instantly, then whole project will become
unviable. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant
approached the OPs for its membership, membership was granted
and he was allotted one plot of 500 sq. yds @ 9000 per sq. yds
excluding CLU charges as demanded by GAMADA. All the papers
and share certificate was handed over to the complainant on
09.04.2012. The complainant was aware that the approvals were in
Consumer Complaint No. 51 of 2014 6
the pipeline as in the welfare society the members have put their
funds to deposit with various statutory authorities, which now they
have obtained. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 33,75,000/- as
price of the plot and the refund can be made according to the terms
and conditions. It is submitted that the complaint is without merit and
the same be dismissed.