Consumer Complaint against Alpha Corp Development ltd wherein it got dismissed on point of jurisdiction.
Since the consumer forum is formed under The Consumer Act,1986, the commission has to follow the provisions and principles laid down by the said act. Like who comes under the term “Consumer”? This case is an example of how the commission decided not to go beyond its jurisdictions and how these commissions and forums have only summary jurisdiction in nature.
Savita Arora vs Alpha Corp Development ltd
Also Read- Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. vs Santosh Kumari
Facts narrated by the complainant
The complainant booked an industrial park developed by opposite parties for which complainant made a payment of Rs.5,16,000 to the opposite parties as an advance payment for the registration of the said plot. It was duly credited to the bank of the opposite parties and receipt was duly issued by the opposite parties to the complainant indicating that the complaint took the service of the opposite parties. When the complainant contacted the opposite parties to execute the buyer’s agreement and the allotment of the plot, the opposite parties made several excuses including the buyer’s agreement will be executed shorty as the work is in progress and the possession will be handed over to the complainant accordingly. However, even after the lapse of four years, nothing has been done by the opposite parties which shows that the intentions of the opposite parties are malafide and they just want to use the hard-earned money of the complainant for their own means and acted in the most illegal and irresponsible manner and thus committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriation and cheating etc. This act of the opposite parties is an act of unfair trade practice and the complainant have suffered mental agony and harassment including financial loss. The complainant is lodging the complaint under section 12 and 13 of the consumer protection act. And due to her busy schedule, she has given authority letter to Ravinder Arora. The compensations are as follows; Opposite parties to be directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,16,000 with the interest of @24 per annum. Compensation worth Rs,1,00,000 may also awarded to the complainant, Rs. 11,000 for litigation expenses, Rs,33,000 for the present litigation.
Also Read- Savita Arora v. Alpha Corp Development Ltd. – Casemine
Reply from the Opposition Parties
The opposite parties no 1 to 3 filled a joint reply. Complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of The Consumer Protection Act. Complainant made her own interpretation while lodging the complaint. The complainant had failed to perform according to the mutually agreed terms and conditions of the application of the plot, to clear the due instalment and take over the possession of the plot, thus, the complainant can’t be allowed to take advantage of her own wrongs. The complainant from her own will applied for the said plot developed by the opposite parties and gave Rs.5,16,000 for the booking amount and the complainant was even allotted the said plot as well. The terms and conditions and have been mutually accepted by both the complainant and the opposite party no. 1 which are given below
- The applicant is free to opted the plan in which it has to play and will be liable to play other charges and dues mentioned in the application and agreements. The application agrees that the total sale price of the plot is dependent and calculated on the basis of the total size of the plot area which is tentative and sole discretion of the company.
- The applicant shall have to right to withdraw the application and in the event of the cancellation before the execution of buyer’s agreement, the company shall forfeit the earnest money along with the non-refundable amount and cancel the allotment in case of terms and conditions of the application and agreement the applicant shall be left with no title, lien or rights or any claim. Any amount of money paid, for booking or any kind, will be refunded without any interest.
- The company is not entitled or obliged to send reminder about the obligation of the applicant.
Also Read- Delay in Possession in Consumer Matter Lawyer Advocate
The total price of the said plot is Rs.24,28,443 where the complainant was to pay the said amount accordance with the terms and condition of the buyer’s agreements along with the other charges that may be asked by the state/centre government or any other authority. After paying the sum of Rs.5,16,000 at the time of the booking, the complainant did not pay any sum of money as per the term and conditions of the buyer’s agreement and has been delaying to pay the instalments. In addition to the complaint is filed by the wife and presented by the husband which is not maintainable as there is no affidavit to support the action. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Evidence put by complainant
- Authority letter
- Copy of acknowledgment
- The copy of letter in which the complainant has asked for refund the amount
- Copy of legal notice
Evidence put by the opposite parties
- Document relating to agreement of allotment
Observation of the commission
Also Read- Deficiency in Services Consumer Complaint
There is no dispute regarding the payment of Rs.5,16,000 and the only matter of contention is the possession of the plot. The opposite parties claim that the complainant doesn’t fall under the definition of the consumer under the section 2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act and given that the plot which was developed by the opposite parties is a commercial activity as records, so the claim of the opposite parties win. In addition to, the complainant in her own pleading stated that the opposite parties had committed breach of trust, misappropriation, cheating etc which is not covered by the consumer protection act.
A probe into this matter is required. This forum can’t exercise its jurisdiction in order to decide its intricate question of law and facts in a summary manner. In was held by Honourable Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel, “Court proceeding before the commission are summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual in question should not be adjudicated.” Same principal was held by Honourable National Commission in R.D Paper Ltd V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & otrs, “After going through the complain and written statement, it appears to the complainant have raised difficult questions which can’t be decided by our summary jurisdiction. “
The other contention is the complaint is not maintainable as it is signed, filed and verified by Mr. Ravindra Arora and no affidavit signed by Savita Arora. However, no duly executive power has been signed by in favour of so-called authorized person. It was held in Anita Sharma v/s BHEL Revision, consumer complain filled by wife and presented by the husband is not maintainable as mere authorisation letter does not make him a customer.
Also Read- Regulatory – Complaint nos. 1506, 1505, 1507
Even for the sake of argument, the complainant paid Rs.5,16,000 and not bothered to pay the remaining amount of instalment and have applied for refund after 4 years which is barred by limitation. It was also held in State Bank of India v/s B.S. Agriculture Industries “It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action”.
In the view of the discussion, the complainant is not only a defaulter but also case complaint falls under the commercial activity and this forum has no jurisdiction to decide on the allegation of the complainant. Hereby, we hold there is no merit in the case, and hereby dismissed.
For case specific advice, please connect with Top Best Expert Legal Consultants Attorneys in Real Estate/Property Estate/Consumer Court and Consumer Protection Dispute/ Consumer Grievances and Complaints/RERA Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
More on 99888-17966.
