APOORV BANSAL Vs. VATIKA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present amended Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act")by the Complainant, Shri Apoorv Bansal against Opposite Party Builder, M/s. Vatika Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Builder') seeking refund of the amount paid by him to the Builders towards purchase of the Residential Unit alongwith interest and compensation.

(2.) The facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant had booked a Residential Apartment in the Project, namely "Tranquil Heights - Vatika India Next", Sector 82A, Gurgaon to be developed by the Opposite Party Builder,by paying a booking amount of 8 lakh on 2/11/2013. The total Sale Consideration of the Apartment was 1,36,25,625/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Six Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five only) which was to be paid in terms of Construction Linked Plan. Vide Allotment Letter, dtd. 29/9/2014,the Complainant was allotted Unit No. E-703 located on7th Floor in Tower No. E having Super Area of 2290 sq. ft. It is alleged by the Complainant that the terms of the allotment were simply dictated to him and he had no option except to sign the Allotment letter under duress. Further, in the Allotment Letter, no date for handing over the possession of the allotted Unit was mentioned and it was orally affirmed by the Builder that the possession of the subject Apartment would be handed over within three years from the date of booking i.e., by November, 2016.

(3.) The Opposite Party Builder resisted the Complaint and filed its Written Version raising the preliminary objections that the Complaint is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction since the total consideration paid by the Complainant is only 45,05,435/- which is less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) of this Commission and the Complainant is merely an investor and had booked the subject Apartment for an investment. Hence, the Complainant is not a "Consumer" as defined in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. It is further contended that there has been a substantial delay in filing the present Complaint in May 2018 as the cause of action has arose in favour of the Complainant on 9/11/2015 when he sought the refund of the deposited amount through an email and as such the Complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. On merits, it is pleaded that; the issues relating to diversion of funds, grant of environmental clearance etc. can be adjudicated only after detailed trial and on adducing cogent evidence which cannot be done in summary proceedings of the Consumer Fora and, therefore, the parties ought to have been relegated to a Civil Court; the Complaint is replete with misrepresentation and concealment of important facts; Complaint is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law; Vide letter dtd. 23/6/2015, the Builder Buyer Agreement was sent to the Complainant for signatures and it was made clear that in case the Complainant fails to sign and return the Agreement within 30 days, the Opposite Party Builder shall have the right to terminate the booking and refund the deposited amount after making deduction of the earnest money, brokerage and other non-refundable charges; as per clause 13 of the Agreement, the construction of the Unit was to be completed within a period of 48 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and hence, the Complaint filed in May 2018 is pre-mature; the Complainant is a defaulter in making the payment of installments at time; since, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Builder, the Complaint deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.