MORAN PLANTATION PVT. LTD., PARASRAMKA HOLDING PVT. LTD. AND MILI MARKETING PVT. LTD. Vs. AMBIENCE PRIVATE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall decide the above said three cases. The complainants, namely, M/s. Moran Plantation Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Parasramka Holding Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Mili Marketing Pvt. Ltd., are stated to be sister concerns. M/s. Ambience Private Ltd., O.P., is the same in all the three cases. In all the three cases, similar questions of facts and law are involved. Consequently, this judgment will decide all the three cases by a common judgment. We will take up the facts from Consumer Complaint No. 307 of 2012, detailed above. The main question pivots around the controversy "Whether a Private Company, for the purposes of getting apartment, is a 'Consumer', under the given circumstances - In all the cases, the complainants applied for booking one apartment, each, measuring approximately, 7362.76 sq.ft. each. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 50,00,000 each, to the O.P., on 24.3.2007. The said amounts were acknowledged by O.P. vide its letter dated 10.4.2007. The O.P. sent the Brochure and Scheme for payment of instalments. One of the clauses provided for the completion of the flat and the delivery thereof to the Buyer within a period of 3 years of the execution of Flat Buyer's Agreement, which was supposed to have been executed between the complainant and O.P. soon after the aforesaid transaction had taken place.

(2.) ON 8.2.2008, the O.P. informed the complainant that the construction was going on in full swing and the O.P. had completed excavation of the Basement and commenced the structure work, besides informing the complainant that its apartment No. 1602, had been shifted in Block 'J' on the same floor and mentioned that the area would be 7672.14 sq.ft instead of 7362.76 sq.ft., in each of the case. The complainant objected to the O.P. about increase of area and change of flat. The complainant also asked to execute the agreement, but it was put off, on one pretext or the other. The complainant was also informed that the Apartment Buyer's Agreement was executed only after receipt of 60% of the payment from the prospective Buyers. The complainant was surprised to receive such like letter. The Company had assured that the flats would be ready within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement. In between, the relations between the parties were far from being cordial. O.P. had threatened to cancel the flat, a show -cause notice was also given. After much deliberations and discussions, the Apartment Buyer's Agreement came to be signed formally, on 27.10.2009. There was delay in construction of the apartment. On 23.12.2009, the O.P. raised a demand in the sum of Rs. 24,00,000 The work was still incomplete. In between, there was disputes of payment and further demands made by the O.P.. The complainant has been paying all the instalments. The total price of the apartment was Rs. 7,49,04,637.50, each, out of which the complainant has already paid a sum more than 70% of the total amount, through instalments. The complainant has not yet got the possession of the premises. It is alleged that the O.P. is trying to extort more and more money from the complainant and is guilty of deficiency. Consequently, the present complaint was filed with the following prayer

(3.) SINCE the Counsel for the O.P. has called into question the jurisdiction of this Commission, therefore, we are bound to decide this point, first of all, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case K. Sagar, Managing Director, Kiran Chit Fund, Musheerabad v. A. Bal Reddy & Anr., : (2008) 7 SCC 166.