PAWAN SALUJA Vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act') against the Order dtd. 25/7/2019 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi ('the State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint No. 863 of 2017, wherein the Complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant/Appellant, based on picture painted by Opposite Party (OP/Respondent herein), booked a residential unit in 'Paras Tierea' on 22/6/2010 vide Flat No.ST01/24 12 A in Tower ST01, Type S, Unit Type 1BHK+ 1Ts, admeasuring 450 sq. ft. at GH-001, Sector-137, Expressway, Noida for Rs.16,65,000.00 under construction linked plan. An Agreement was executed between them on 30/10/2010. As per Clause 5 of the agreement, the possession was to be handed over within 24 months with grace period of 12 months, from the date of the agreement on 30/10/2010 i.e. by 30/10/2013. The Complainant paid Rs.13,97,446.00 till 5/9/2013. Vide letter dtd. 20/6/2018, OP informed him that area of unit has been increased from 450 to 495 Sq Ft and demanded Rs.1,86,525.00 for increased area and Rs.1462.00 for maintenance. As possession was not delivered by 30/10/2013, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking:

(3.) In the reply filed by the OP, many preliminary objections were raised. It was averred that the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission was challenged. It was further averred that the delay occurred in handing over the possession of the said unit due to fulfillment of certain conditions and circumstances which were not in control of the Opposite Party. The remaining averments were denied being false and baseless. The Appellant prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed in the case with costs. In addition, the OP has filed an Application dtd. 18/2/2019 vide diary no.1545 dtd. 18/2/2019 before the State Commission under Sec. 18 r/w Sec. 13 (3B) of the Act seeking rejection of the complaint on the ground that the Complainant has also filed a similar complaint against another builder/ developer on similar cause of action and the same is pending for adjudication before the State Commission titled as 'Pawan Saluja vs. Supertech Limited being Case No. CC/472/2017. It is averred that the Complainant failed to disclose the said fact in the present matter with an intention to dispose of the same for profit. Hence, the Complainant does not fall within the definition of a Consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is prayed that the complaint be rejected on the preliminary issue raised.