1.       These two appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) by Sohan Singh and his wife, Harvinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainants’) assailing the Orders dated 02.04.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in complaints No. 259 of 2019 and no. 260 of 2019 whereby the complaints filed by the Complainants were dismissed.

      Since facts and issues involved in these appeals are identical, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

2.       The facts, in brief, are that on 18.02.2012, complainants booked two plots in the project, namely, ‘Chinar Homes’, Kishanpura, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab by submitting two separate applications and depositing a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- (Rs. 2,60,000/- each), being 10% of the total sale consideration of the plots in question. On the very same day, the name of the complainants were got registered by the respondents, in respect of sale of the plot, vide Registration Form dated 18.02.2012. It is alleged that the possession of the plot would be handed over within 24 months from the date of booking i.e. on or before 17.02.2014 but the respondents have failed to hand over the possession of the plot within the stipulated period for want of development. It is alleged that between the period from 2014 to 2018, the complainants made number of visits to the office of respondents to hand over the possession of the plots but they did not bother and every time they gave bald assurances and lingered on the matter, on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that the act of the respondents amounts deficiency in service on their part.

3.       Being aggrieved, the complainants filed complaints no. 259 and 260 of 2019 before the State Commission seeking refund of the deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the dates of deposits along with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation costs in each case.

4.       The State Commission vide its orders dated 02.04.2019 dismissed both the complaints.

5.       The complainants have filed the present appeals no. 1041 and 1042 of 2019 before this Commission seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 02.04.2019 of the State Commission in complaints no. 259 and 260 of 2019.

6.       The learned counsel for the complainants argued that after receiving a substantial amount of Rs.2,60,000/- in each case, the respondents have neither allotted the plots nor offered and delivered the possession of the plots to the complainants and the project has been launched in the absence of necessary approvals and sanctions having been obtained from the competent authorities. In so far as relationship of complainants and respondents as consumer and service provider are concerned, he further argued that once registration amount has been paid by a purchaser, he/she will fall under the definition of a ‘consumer’. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Virender Jain vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited 2013 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 528 (SC) = 2013 (2) R.C.R.(Civil) 980 (SC) wherein it has held that that by making applications for allotment of land, the societies would be deemed to have hired or availed of the services of the Chandigarh Administration. He placed reliance on the following decisions:

(a) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Anr. Vs. A.V.Ramakrishna, III(1994) CPJ 137 (NC)

(b) Virender Jain Vs. Aalknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, 2013 (3) Recent apex Judgments (R.AJ.) 528 (S.C)= 2013 (2) R.C.J (Civil) 980 (S.C.)

(c) Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, Civil Appeal No.6237 of 1990=III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=AIR 1994 787=1994 SCC (1) 243.

(d) Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Avtar Singh and Others, 2010 (4) RCR Civil 579 SC.

7.       Heard the learned counsel for the complainants and have perused the material on record.

None appeared on behalf of the respondents and vide order dated 12.02.2024, respondents were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

No written submission was filed by the respondents.

8. The question which falls for our consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

9.       From a perusal of the record, it is seen that no allotment letter has been brought on record by complainants. Also, there is no buyer’s agreement on the record or any document regarding the terms agreed to between the parties to substantiate the contention that the money was deposited for two plots. The receipts or registration forms do not mention the purpose for which the money was given. The complainants relied upon the receipts dated 18.02.2012 for payments of Rs.2,60,000/- each and the registration forms. There is no identity of units that were allotted or against which the payment was made. From the papers placed, it is not made out as to the exact purpose for which the money was given and whether a consumer and service provider relationship got established.

10.     In view of the above, this Commission is of the opinion that the orders dated 02.04.2019 of the State Commission in complaints no. 259 of 2019 and 260 of 2019 are well-reasoned order. Therefore, the both the appeals are dismissed. The complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, in accordance with law. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.