Delhi

East Delhi

CC/370/2018

SH. KIRAN PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI NITIN GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

14 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.370/2018

 

	Sh. Kiran Pal, S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, R/o. H.No. 32, Gali No. 1, Arya Nagar, Delhi-110092	….Complainant
Versus
1	Shri. Nitin Gupta Director of M/s. R.N Promart PVT. Ltd., At present at A-44, III Floor, Hare Krishna Bhawan, Near Sanjay Park, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092	……OP1
2	R.N Promart Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director, At present at A-44, III Floor, Hare Krishna Bhawan, Near Sanjay Park, Shakarpur, Delhi-92	……OP2

 

Date of Institution	:	20.11.2018
Judgment Reserved on	:	07.03.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	14.03.2023

 

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

 

Order By:

Ms. Rashmi Bansal

(Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against OP for deficiency of service in not giving him the plot as promised by OP against consideration and praying for refund of the money deposited with OP along with compensation for causing mental harassment, agony, sufferings and the litigation cost.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he booked one plot of 200 Sq. yd. in the OP’s project in Dadri  and paid him total amount of Rs.2,05,000/-  for the aforesaid plot to  OP against receipt dated 07.03.2016, 15.03.2016 and 19.05.2016.
2. Complainant submits that, despite repeated visits at the OP’s office, the OP with dishonest intention, neither executed sale deed of above stated 200 sq. yd. plot nor given possession of the same to the complainant, rather he  came to know that the OP and his firm, in fact had no plots and flats and they have been cheating  people. Complainant further submits that after much persuasion, the OP agreed to refund the aforesaid amount deposited by the complainant and has issued a post-dated account payee cheque dated 15.09.2016 bearing number 009269 of Rs. 2,05,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn at Axis Bank Vasundhara Ghaziabad. However, the said cheque was not encashed and got dishonoured with the remark ‘insufficient fund’ vide bank memo dated 03.10.2016 issued by complainant banker, SBI Krishna Nagar, Delhi East. The complainant contacted OP many times but OP only assured the complainant that he will give the refund but did not pay. Complainant submits that the OP is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 2,05,000/-  along with interest 24% p.a., Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant at the hands of OP due to intentional negligence and cheating done by OP with the complainant.
3. Upon notice, the OP refused to accept the notice and was deemed to be served and did not appear and as such has been proceeded ex-parte on 16.04.2019. Complainant has filed his ex-parte  evidence and marked following documents as exhibit.
   1. The receipt dated 07.03.2016, 15.03.2016 and 19.05.2016, Ex. CW1/1colly;
   2. Photo copy of cheque given by the OP, Ex. CW1/2;
   3. Photo copy of bank return memo, Ex. CW1/3;
   4. Photo copy of visiting card of OP Ex. CW1/4;
   5. Photo copy of Aadhaar card of complainant is Ex. CW1/5;
4. This Commission has heard the submission of the complainant and perused the documents on record. Since OP was proceeded ex-parte, therefore, the  submissions made by the complainant remained uncontroverted and deemed to be accepted by the OP.
5. The perusal of the record shows that the complainant has not filed any agreement executed between him and OP. Neither there is any document to show that OP has made any promise for the development of the said plot, nor there is any documentation with respect to promise of OP to provide any service to the complainant with respect to the said plot.
6. It is settled law that disputes relating to land and immovable property are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act as the same are not Consumer dispute, since there is no sale of goods or services rendered against consideration. Disputes can be raised under Consumer Protection Act only with respect to those services in connection with immovable wherein the builder had to provide land/ plot/ building along with some services to develop the said land/ plot/ building for consideration and the written agreement. A mere plot or land is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, hence not covered under the definition of goods. In the present case, it is simply sale of a plot of land by OP  to the complainant on payment of a consideration / money and thus the very nature of the transaction shows that it was an agreement  of sale simpliciter and so this cannot be covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7. Hon'ble  Supreme Court in Ganesh Lal versus Syam, CA number 331/2007, has noted that “when it comes to housing construction, the same has been specifically covered under the definition of services by an amendment inserted by Act, 50 of 1993 with effect from 18th or 06.1993. That being the position as far as the house and construction by sale of flats by builder or societies is concerned, that will be on a different footing. On the other hand where a sale of plot of land simpliciter is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be covered under the said Act.”
8. The case in hand is squarely covered by the above mentioned judgment  wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed that failure to handover possession of the mere plot of land simpliciter does not fall under the jurisdiction of Consumer Courts. Since there is dispute between OP and the complainant over the possession of the plot of land simpliciter, the same cannot come within the jurisdiction of consumer forum as it is not a sale of land with certain services. The situation however, would have been different if the same would have relates to construction of the said plot or sale of flats by builders or societies.
9. In view of the above this commission is of the considered opinion that complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act and hence his grievance cannot be dealt before this commission. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
10. The file be consigned to Record room after providing the copy of the order to the parties as per rules of CPA and uploading on website. 
11. The case could not be decided with in statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
12. The order contains 07 Pages each bears our signature.

Pronounced on 14.03.2023.