ROHIT JAIN Vs. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case is filed under Sec. 21(a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) The case of the Complainant is that on 1/5/2006, he booked a three bedroom flat measuring 1855 sq. ft. in "Parsvnath Privilege" project with the Opposite Party, for a consideration of Rs.52,86,750.00 and paid an advance of Rs.3,00,000.00. On 1/5/2006, he further paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000.00. In April 2007, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that he has been allotted Flat No.T12-301. Thereafter, the Complainant deposited the amount as per following details: -

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing reply. The Opposite Party took the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Complaint. It was contended that the Complainant was not a consumer under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he booked the flat for commercial purpose. The Opposite Party also challenged the Complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. It was contended that the Complainant had claimed exorbitant rate of interest of 24% per annum thereby inflating the claim so as to bring the Complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. It was stated that the dispute involves complicated question of facts and law and needs elaborate evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in summary jurisdiction and the appropriate Forum is the Civil Court. The Opposite Party also challenged the Complaint on the principle of res judicata. The Opposite Party also stated that the Complaint is barred by limitation. On merit, it was contended that the delay in construction was due to recession in the real estate sector and the Opposite Party had duly communicated the status of the project. At the time of booking, the Complainant was fully aware about the status of construction and approvals. Delay in completion of the project had occurred due to unforeseeable circumstances, beyond the control of the Opposite Party. The super structure of almost all towers in Phase-1 has been completed. The Complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed with cost.