NIRMAL HORA Vs. UNITECH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15.10.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), being not maintainable.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased plot No.0013, Tower B, in Garden Sector 97, Uniworld City, Mohali, from Devinder Gupta and Sons Realtors Pvt. Ltd., vide agreement to sell dated 14.01.2011 (Annexure C -1). The said plot was later on, transferred in the name of the complainant, vide agreement dated 16.02.2011 (copy Annexure C -2). Out of the total sale consideration of Rs.74,72,010/ -, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.72,18,060/ -, as per the payment plan Annexure A. The balance amount of Rs.3,13,950/ -, was to be paid by the complainant, at the time of final notice, in respect of delivery of possession of the unit, in question. It was stated that, according to sub clause (a) of clause 4 of Article 4 of the sale agreement, the Opposite Parties were required to deliver possession of the plot, within a period of 12 months, subject to force majeure circumstances. It was also mentioned in sub clause (c) of clause 4 of the said agreement that, in case of delay, in delivery of possession of the said unit, the Opposite Parties, were liable to pay penalty/compensation @ Rs.50/ - per sq. yard, per month of the area of the same, for period of delay. It was further stated that the complainant made several requests, through registered post and email (Annexures C -3 to C -6). She also made personal visits to the office of Opposite Party No.1, to know about the status of the project, but to no avail. It was further stated that when the complainant visited the site, where the plot, in question, was carved, she was shocked to see that there was no development works like roads, sewerage, electric poles and other basic amenities. It was further stated that neither possession of the plot was handed over to the complainant, nor she was compensated for the period of delay, in delivery of possession of the unit, in question. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay interest @ 18% per annum, on the amount of Rs.72,18,060/ -, from the date of deposit, till handing over of possession, of the plot, in question; compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/ -, for mental agony and physical harassment; and Rs.25,000/ - as litigation costs.

(3.) THE Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as she had purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purpose i.e. for selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, to gain huge profits. It was further pleaded that the District Forum had no pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It was admitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.72,18,060/ -, towards part price of the unit, in question. It was also admitted that possession of the unit, in question, was to be handed over, to the complainant, within 12 months, from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. from 16.02.2011, subject to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, could not hand over possession of the unit, to the complainant, as there was global meltdown of the economy worldwide, wherein the foreign investors, as anticipated by them (Opposite Parties), had refrained from any kind of investment, in India, and large portions of buildings were vacant throughout India as also there was a cash crunch throughout. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.