Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - (1.) These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenge the judgment and final order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the National Commission) in Consumer Complaint No.62 of 2013 and also against the order dated 01.05.2018 passed by the National Commission dismissing Review Application No.129 of 2018 preferred by the appellants herein.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid Consumer Complaint were set out by the National Commission in para nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of its order dated 03.04.2018 as under: "2. It is alleged that the complainants are non-resident Indians presently residing in Denmark. They intend to shift to India. Thus with the intention to earn their livelihood they booked shop No.P-3-115 having super area 1095 sq. ft. @ 9900 per sq. ft. Total consideration payable for the shop was Rs.1,08,40,500/-. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the opposite party had assured to give possession of the shop to the complainants within two years from the date of commencement of construction. The consideration amount was payable in following manner:- JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(SC)10_2019_1.html 3. It is alleged by the complainants that they paid installments of Rs.21,61,100/- on 10th August, 2007, 10th September, 2007 and 4th October, 2007. They also paid installments amounting to Rs.13,55,063/- on 2.11.2007 and Rs.8,13,038/- on 6th December, 2007. The opposite party thus on receiving 80% of the consideration amount sent two sets of agreement for signatures of the complainants which were signed and returned back to the opposite party on 10th March, 2008. 4. On 18.6.2009 the complainant by way of e-mail sought information about the status of the project as also the date by which the opposite party proposed to deliver possession of the subject unit. The opposite party vide email dated 29.6.2009 informed that the plaza was ready for possession except that completion certificate was awaited. Thereafter, on 9th July, 2009 the opposite party demanded last installment of Rs.5,42,025/- against the sale consideration which was also paid. It is alleged that despite having received 100% payment of the consideration amount the opposite party has failed to deliver possession of the subject unit even years after the expiry of the stipulated date of deliver of possession. Claiming this to be unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainants have raised the consumer dispute seeking following prayer:- "i) Direct the OP to pay Rs.1,11,30,501/- (Rupees one crore eleven lakhs thirty thousand five hundred and one) towards compensation which has become due as on today; ii) Direct the OP to give possession and title of the said shop to the complainants; iii) Direct the OP to account for or refund Rs.2,85,131/- with interest of 18% in case the said money has not been accounted for or not paid for construction of fly over; iv) Pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the financial loss, mental and physical agony; v) Pay Rs.3 lacs towards litigation cost." 5. The opposite party in its written statement has raised preliminary objection as to locus standi of the complainants to file the complaints on the plea that the subject shop was booked by the complainants for commercial purpose. Therefore, they cannot be termed consumers as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the booking of the shop by the complainants, the agreed consideration amount as also the payment made by the complainants against the consideration amount in instalments have not been denied. According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency on its part. It is alleged that the agreement for sale of the subject unit was entered into between the parties in March 2008 and the completion certificate for the project i.e. Plaza-3 was applied in November 2008. Had the opposite party received completion certificate in the year 2008, the possession would have been given to the complainant either in 2008 or early 2009. The government agencies took very long time to give sanction / approval which was beyond the control of the opposite party. The opposite party received the completion certificate in September 2010 while the opposite party was gearing up for giving possession to the respective allottees, MCD revoked the completion certificate and sealed the Plaza. This led to litigation. Finally with the intervention of Court, Plaza was desealed in May 2012 and completion certificate was restored. Since then opposite party has been delivering possession of the respective units to the purchasers and by the date of filing of written statement, 100 sale deeds have been registered in favour of the allottees in Plaza-1 and Plaza-3. It is alleged that complainants were offered possession of the subject shop in June 2012 but they did not come forward for taking possession and execution and registration of sale deed. The case of the opposite party, therefore, is that it was prevented from delivering possession of the subject shop to the complainants within the stipulated period because of non-availability of completion certificate from the concerned authorities which cannot be termed as deficiency in service."
(3.) When the matter came up for final disposal after the evidence was led by the parties, the questions that were posed for consideration by the National Commission were: whether or not the complainants were "consumers" for the purposes of the Act, and, whether the complaint was maintainable? These questions were answered against the appellants and correctness of the decision of the National Commission in that behalf is in issue before us.;