9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Opposite Parties is commercial in nature. Refund of the amount sought by the Complainant is only extension of initial investment made by him, which is purely commercial in nature - By the Complainant s own admission, vide settlement dated 21.11.2016 the said amount was agreed to be accounted against the contractual promise for delivery to the Complainant of a duplex flat. The amount paid alongwith accrued interest was the consideration for the flat and the debt was discharged by the Opposite Parties through the promise to deliver the duplex flat to the Complainant. Entering into agreement for a duplex flat is only a sequence for realizing the invested amount with interest. Claim made by the Complainant is only for furtherance of gain for the original investment made. The Complainant being an investor is not a Consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Consumer Complaint is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum. - CONSUMER CASE NO. 307 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2022 - MR. C. VISWANATH, PRESIDING MEMBER AND MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Complainant : Mr. Anoop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Complainant. Subsequently, the Complainant and his wife submitted two separate deposit Registration forms along with a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- pertaining to two separate flats promised by Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 sent letter dated 21.11.2006 to the Complainant acknowledging the entire payment against booking of the said flats and stating that there were no past dues left from either side and full and final receipt of payment for the said flats was confirmed. Opposite Party No.2 assured the Complainant over telephone that significant progress had taken place in the construction of the project and that he would be sending photographs as proof. The Complainant, however, did not receive any proof of construction. The Complainant, vide letter dated 12.12.2012, informed Opposite Party No. 2 regarding his visit to Jaipur and noticed that no work was being done on the project even after 5 years from the date of Settlement. The Complainant sought refund of the full value of the said flats with interest, amounting to Rs.3,20,00,000/-. The Complainant further demanded punitive damages of Rs,1,80,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties for compelling him to occupy costly alt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him with the sole intention to earn profit by disposing off the same. Further, the Complainant is seeking 12% annual compoundable interest on the amount and is thus acting as a money lender who could not be considered to be a Consumer as defined under Section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It had been specifically mentioned in clause 14 of the registration form that any dispute or difference between the Applicant/Buyer and the Opposite Parties shall be resolved through arbitration in terms of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The matter required detailed evidence and the proceedings before this Commissionare summary in nature. 6. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 and 2 stated that there was no deficiency on their part and whatever delay had occurred in completion of the construction of the project was beyond the control and power of the Opposite Parties. The delay occurred due to the restraint order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 5702/2006 and not due to any fault or negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and as such the Opposite Parties could not be held liable. It was submitted that initially the Complainant was allotted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex flat to the Complainant. Due to this inordinate delay, the Complainant lost confidence that the flat would ever be made available to him, and has accordingly prayed for payment of Rs.5,00,30,000/-. 8. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Complaint was time barred and is liable to be dismissed. It was also stated that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and the Complaint is devoid of merit. This Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint as the Complainant was not a Consumer and the allegations made needs to be examined requiring detailed evidence by both the Parties. Moreover, the Complaint was not maintainable as the parties had agreed to resolve all their disputes through the medium of Arbitration. 9. Preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant was not Consumer as he was acting the capacity of money lender and claimed interest on the money invested by him. In this regard, para 3 of the Complaint is relevant, which reads as follows: - 3. The Complainant is a respected citizen and enjoys an enviable and unimpeachable reputation as a businessman. His cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
