M. GOVINDA REDDY Vs. VENKAT ESTATES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dtd. 24/6/2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants was dismissed with cost to ?50,000/- to be paidin Consumer Welfare Fund of the State Commission.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Appellants/Complainants Sri M. Govinda Reddy and M. Yashodamma,are the absolute owners of the Property of bearing Sy. No. 101 of Kittaganur Village, BidarahalliHobli, Bangalore measuring 4 acres (hereinafter referred to as the land). Respondent No. 1, M/s. Venkat Estates Pvt. Ltd., approached them to develop multi-story residential apartments with all amenities in 2 acres out of the total 4 acres of Land. A Joint Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) was executed between the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 on 15/11/2013. As per terms of the Agreement, the Respondent No.1 was solely responsible to develop/construct/complete the multi-story residential apartments on the Land. A Supplementary Agreement was also executed on 10/7/2015 between the Parties for sharing of Flats on the Land. As per terms of the Agreement, the Appellant was entitled for 45% of the total built-up area, which works out to 1,04,778 sq. ft. 80 Apartmentsmeasuring 1,04,719 sq. ft. fell into the share of the Appellants and for the shortage of 59 sq. ft., was to be compensated by the Respondent No.1 by paying mutually agreed amount, in due course of time. As per terms of the Agreement, the Respondent No.1 Developer ought to have completed the Appellants' share, i.e., 80 Apartment within 38 months from the date of execution of the JDA, i.e., 15/1/2017. But the Respondent No. 1 Developer could not complete the Project within stipulated period. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No. 1 Developer the Appellants filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Respondent No.1 Developer before the State Commission by denying all the allegations made by the Complainants and it wassubmitted that the Complainants are not consumers within the definition of either U/s 2(1)(d) of CPA 1986 or U/s. 2(7) of CPA 2019. It was submitted that as per terms of the Joint Development Agreement and Supplementary Agreement, out of the total Apartments, 80 Apartments were fell in the share of the Appellants and 96 Apartments were fell in the share of Respondent No. 1. Out of their 96 Apartments, they have already sold 76 apartments to the prospective buyers and 20 Apartments are yet to be sold. 46 Apartment purchasers are in physical possession and are enjoying the same as they have provided all the basic amenities to the Flat owners. As far as the share of the Complainants is concerned, they too have already sold 4 Apartments out of 80 Apartments and the buyers are in the physical possession of the Apartments. This clearly shows that this is a purely commercial and joint venture transaction and revolves around business dispute and not a consumer dispute. It was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed being not maintainable.