COMMANDER JAGDISH RAI Vs. NATURE HEIGHTS INFRA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails order dtd. 20/12/2019 in Consumer Complaint No.979 of 2018 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') dismissing the complaint as not maintainable on the ground that the Appellant herein was not a 'consumer' under the provisions of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellant, who is a retired Indian Navy personnel had booked in the year 2011 a shop in the Mandi Gobindgarb Shopping Complex Mall of the Respondent a shop for Rs.21.00 Lakhs and also 4 acres of agricultural land in Nagpur and two residential plots in Talwara Housing Complex. The Complainant/Appellant submits that when he found the project had not started, he sought refund but was persuaded in 2014-2015 to book a flat in the Respondent's housing complex in Jhungiyan village, Tehsil Kharar, Sector 125, Mohali and was allotted flat B-1 on 25/8/2015 admeasuring 1530 sq.ft. on the ground floor, Block-B, Tower 20. A Sale Agreement was signed on 25/8/2015 in respect of this flat as per which construction was promised within one year, failing which the amount was to be refunded with interest @ 13%. In July 2016, the Appellant learnt that construction of Tower 20 was unlikely to commence soon and therefore, he accepted the offer of the Respondent on 26/7/2016 to accept allotment of flat No.A-3 in Tower 5 which also admeasured 1530 sq. ft. As the construction of this tower was also found to be very slow, the Appellant contends that he sought a refund and was issued three cheques dtd. 23/11/2016 for Rs.12,79,819.00, 10/11/2016 for Rs.12,79,819.00 and 14/12/2016 for Rs.12,70,300.00 respectively, totalling to Rs.38,29,928.00. However, these post-dated cheques were dishonoured by the Bank due to 'insufficient funds' in the account of the Respondent. He, thereafter, served a Legal Notice for payment of his dues in 15 days which was not complied with by the Respondents. Therefore, he filed two cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi. The same was followed by the filing of Consumer Complaint No.979 of 2018 before the State Commission praying for the handing over of the flat booked by him on an 'as is basis' or to refund the money deposited by him with interest along with litigation costs and compensation for mental agony and harassment. Vide order dtd. 20/11/2019, the State Commission dismissed the Complaint holding that the Appellant/Complainant was not a 'consumer' under the purview of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. This order is impugned before this Commission by way of this Appeal.