MAJOR VISHWANI PURI Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint was originally filed against M/s DLF Universal Ltd. on behalf of an unregistered association, namely, DLF Towers Okhla Owners Association. The institution of complaint by an unregistered Association was objected to. The individual allottees thus moved an application for being substituted as complainants in place of unregistered Association. The application was allowed by order dated 17.1.2012 and individual allottees were substituted as complainants in place of the unregistered Association.

(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of the objection to maintainability of the consumer complaint are that the instant complaint has been filed on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in respect of the alleged allotment of commercial spaces like shop and office etc. to the respective complainants in the project of the opposite party to construct commercial tower known as "DLF Towers", Okhla, New Delhi. It is the case of the respective complainants that persuaded by the misrepresentation of the opposite party they had booked commercial spaces of varying areas between 500 sq. ft. to 6000 sq. ft. at the rate of varying from Rs.15000 to 17000 per sq. ft. The respective bookings were done by making initial payments on different dates of March, 2008. According to the complainants in all they have cumulatively paid more than 100 Crores to the opposite party but the opposite party has failed to fulfill its part of the contract by failing to provide shops and office spaces to the complainants by completing the project after obtaining requisite sanctions from various Government authorities. The complainants have, thus, prayed for the refund of the amount paid by them with 18% interest thereon from the date of filing of application till the date of refund of money besides compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs to each of the complainants and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation to each of the complainants.

(3.) The opposite party in its written statement apart from the pleas on merits has taken a preliminary objection that the instant complaint is not maintainable because the complainants are not the consumers as envisaged in the definition of "Consumer" under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").