BHAGABAN PRAKASH Vs. GYG NATURE HOME LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against the Opposite Parties seeking to direct the OPs:

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that GYG Nature Homes Private Limited (OP-1) and Global Yog Graam (OP-5), along with its Directors (OPs-.2 to 4), induced the complainant, a senior citizen, to invest Rs.53.00 lakh between November 2012 and March 2013 for the purchase of a one-acre plot with a cottage in the proposed "Global Yog Graam" project near Greater Noida, by their representations, brochures and repeated assurances. However, despite receipt of the entire consideration and issuance of money receipts acknowledging the same, the OPs neither executed any agreement nor delivered the possession within the promised period of two years. The project itself was found to be non-existent. OP-2 through various emails from 2015 to 2018, repeatedly admitted liability and sought time on false pretexts while offering alternative arrangements or refund, but failed to honour any commitment despite legal notice dtd. 9/8/2018. Thus, the acts of OPs constitute clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, entitling the complainant to refund of Rs.53.00 lakh along with interest @18% per annum, compensation of Rs.10.00 lakh for mental agony, and litigation costs.

(3.) On being issued notice, the complaint was resisted by OP-1 by filing written statement contending that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, false, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts, as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and OP-1 is presently a defunct company with no liability whatsoever. OP-1 denied that any consideration was paid to OP-1 in personal capacity, and that the alleged transaction pertains merely to a conceptual "vision" of a Global Yog Gram project and not to any concluded contract for sale of land. There being no written agreement, no promise of possession, and no stipulated timeline; the complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence regarding the alleged purchase of the alleged 1-acre plot and the document relied upon is merely a pamphlet reflecting a general vision rather than any binding offer. OP-1 contended that the amounts of Rs.5.00 lakhs and Rs.13.00 lakhs were paid respectively as a donation to an NGO and towards a separate partnership firm, namely M/s Global Yog Graam. There is no privity of contract with OP-1 and complainant, who was a gainfully employed government officer and a serial investor and thus does not fall within the definition of a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act. as the transaction was purely for investment/ commercial purposes and subject to market risks which were knowingly undertaken. Also, non-impleadment of a necessary party, namely Shri Satya Bhushan Arya, a partner in the firm and a material participant in the transaction, renders the complaint bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. OP-1 contended that any correspondence relied upon by the complainant was made purely out of personal goodwill and does not create any legal liability upon OPs. The complainant suppressed material facts, misrepresented the transaction and approached this Commission with unclean hands, thereby abusing the process of law. The dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature and outside the ambit of the Consumer Law, and OP-1 sought the complaint to be dismissed.