Services – Real Estate – Delay in allotment of Apartment - Thus direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant i.e., Rs. 19,01,325/- along with interest.

Citation

[2022] 2 CPR 137

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Delay in allotment of Apartment - Allegation of Commercial Purpose – not a ground to reject Consumer Compliant - Whether The Complainant Falls Under The Definition Of ‘Consumer’ As Per The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - It is for the Opposite Party to prove that the flat purchased was for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof and a mere bald statement is not sufficient to raise adverse inference against the Complainant - Opposite Party has merely made a statement that the Complainant purchased the plot for commercial purpose and on perusal of the record before us, we fail to find any material which shows that the Complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by sale of such flats. Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party is answered in the negative. [Paras 10, 11].

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Delay in allotment of Apartment – Complicated questions of fact – Jurisdiction of State Commission – If Barred - Whether The Jurisdiction Of State Commission Is Barred And Only The Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Complaint - Complainant entered into an agreement to avail the services of the Opposite Party for a consideration. However, the Opposite Party failed to honour the terms of the agreement, aggrieved by which, the Complainant has approached this commission. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to file the present complaint before this commission since the Complainant is aggrieved by the deficient services of the Opposite Party i.e., the failure of the Opposite Party to handover the possession of the said plot within a stipulated time period – Thus, nothing cogent has been brought on record by the Opposite Party which would reflect that there are complicated questions involved in the present dispute which could not be settled on the basis of the pleadings filed on behalf of the contesting parties – Also, the complaint falls within the four corners of the jurisdiction of this commission and there is no bar with respect to the jurisdiction of this commission to entertain cases related to the refund of amount deposited with the Opposite Party. [Paras 16 to 19].

(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – False Assurance - Alleged delay of 15 years in allotment of Flat - Whether The Opposite Party Is Deficient In Providing Its Services To The Complainant - The opposite party failed to offer possession of the said plot within the stipulated period – Thus, Opposite Party deficient in providing its services to the Complainant as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the complainant with respect to the time for handing over the possession of the said plot and kept the hard-earned money of the complainant for about 15 years – Thus direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant i.e., Rs. 19,01,325/- along with interest – Compliant allowed.

Result: Compliant allowed.