Sham Sunder, J. (President) -
(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the aforesaid two First Appeal Nos. 380 of 2014 and 381 of 2014 titled as Rajesh Rana v. U.K. Homes and Another, arising out of the common majority order dated 29.10.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the consumer complaints, bearing Nos. 340 of 2014 and 341 of 2014, filed by the complainant (now appellant), on the ground that the same were not maintainable, as he (complainant) did not fall within the definition of a consumer. At the same time, liberty was granted to the complainant, to resort to any other remedy, which may be available to him, for redressal of his grievance, under the provisions of law. One Member of the District Forum, recorded the dissenting order.
(2.) THE facts being identical, are culled out from the consumer complaint titled as Rajesh Rana v. U.K. Homes and Another, bearing No. 340 of 2014. According to the complainant, he along with his family members, agreed to purchase 4 plots, measuring 200 sq. yards each, i.e. one for himself, one for family of his son namely Kartik Rana, one for family of his nephew and other for family of his brother, namely Rakesh Rana, at a total consideration of Rs. 24,00,000 each. According to the complainant, at the time of booking of the said plots, the representative of the opposite parties, confirmed that, in case, they failed to get necessary approvals/sanctions from the Competent Authorities, the amount so deposited towards the said units, would be refunded along with interest. It was stated that, as such Advance Registration Form dated 14.6.2012, Annexure C -1 was filled by the complainant, in respect of one plot, measuring 200 sq.yards, in the project of the opposite parties. It was further stated that along with the said Registration Form, an amount of Rs. 3 lacs, vide receipt dated 14.6.2012, Annexure C -3, was also paid by the complainant, to the opposite parties. The complainant was also issued certificate, Annexure C -2 confirming booking of the said plot. It was further stated that, since it was assured by the opposite parties, that necessary approvals/sanctions from the Competent Authorities, shall be obtained by them, within a period of six months, as such, the complainant waited for the said period, but they failed to do so. It was further stated that after waiting for a considerable time, left with no other alternative, the complainant invoked Clause 7(d) of the terms and conditions, contained in the Advance Registration Form and requested the opposite parties, to refund the amount along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of deposit but to no a vail. It was further stated that, even till date, the project of the opposite parties had not been approved, what to speak of development and possession of the unit, in question. It was further stated that even the legal notice dated 24.3.2014, Annexure C -4 served upon the opposite parties did not evoke any response. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the opposite parties, to refund the amount of Rs. 3 lacs, along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of deposit; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs. 1 lac, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 50,000.
(3.) DESPITE deemed service, none put in appearance, on behalf of the opposite parties, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 10.10.2014.;