Dr. Pramod Kumar Arora & Anr. Complainant(S) v. Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Opp. Party(S).

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. Dr. Pramod Kumar Arora- Complainant No. 1 and his wife Smt. Anuradha Arora- Complainant No. 2 have filed the present complaint. They are NRI persons and permanent US citizens. Complainant No. 1 is a Scientist in U.S.A. and Complainant No. 2 is also working in U.S.A. They have filed the complaint through their power of attorney, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Arora, brother of Complainant No. 1.

2. On 01.12.2012, both the complainants purchased six properties, i.e. five plots and one Villa from DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. They paid Rs.11,70,03,556/- till 19.04.2012. On 29.07.2013, they were informed that the project will be completed after around 12 months. An option was also given to accept the Villa with delayed period or to cancel the booking/allotment with refund of full amount paid by the complainants alongwith simple interest @ 9% p.a. The complainants opted to cancel the booking of the Villa only and requested for refund of full amount with interest directly through RTGS in the Bank account of the complainant No. 1 situated in India. It was also agreed that the complainants would take five plots. The money was not returned. The complainants got frustrated. They cancelled the five plots as well. The DLF did not refund the amount. Complaint was made to the NRI Commission, Punjab on 16.06.2014. The counsel appeared before the said Commission and informed the Commission that the OP Company is ready to hand over the cheque in the sum of Rs.2,19,53,344.23 to the complainants, alongwith interest. It transpired that they have calculated the interest for short period. The said complaint was ultimately withdrawn. Several e-mails were written to the OP to refund the money but it did not ring the bell. Ultimately, this complaint was filed before this Commission with the following prayer:-

(a) To direct the Opposite Party/respondent company to refund a sum of Rs. 9,72,39,930.00 (Rupees Nine Crore Seventy Two Lac Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty only) as paid by the complainants to the respondent company at the time of booking of five plots in the year 2012 (February, 2012); (b) To direct the Opposite Party/respondent company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,98,51,326.00 (Rupees Two Crore Ninety Eight Lac Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Six only) as interest @ 9% per annum on the above mentioned amount paid by the complainants towards five plots calculated since February, 2012 to June, 2015 for 1245 days by the respondent company; (c) To direct the Opposite Party/respondent company to pay a sum of Rs.4,19,016.00 (Rupees Four Lac Nineteen Thousand Sixteen only) as interest on the outstanding amount of interest on the refund against Villa (as per ANNEXURE-C/17); (d) To direct the Opposite Party/respondent company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) being the amount for Compensation (mental, physical, social and financial harassment, pain and agony) to the complainants and for the unlawful, illegal, unethical and unprofessional behaviour, dealing and conduct of the respondent company towards the complainants being NRI; (e) To direct the Opposite Party/respondent company to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lac only) being the cost and expenses of legal proceedings and fee for the counsel of the complainants; Any other or further relief which this Honble National Commission may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present complaint of the complainants and in the interest of justice.

3. Counsel for the complainant insisted that the complainants are consumers. The complaint is conspicuously silent about it. The complainants have not explained how they need five or six houses for themselves. Nowhere in the complaint it has been mentioned that they have intention to return to India. They are the permanent citizens of USA. They are working there. Even if they are to come back to India, it is not stated, what they will do with as many as with six houses. Their intention is clear in para No. 25 of the complaint. The relevant extract runs as under:- Such type of illegal, unlawful and unprofessional activities of the respondent company having a good reputation in the field of infrastructure and real estate business creates a big question mark and doubt not only in the mind of the complainants but also a number of NRIs who were/are planning to invest attracting amount in India and as far as the question of complainants is concerned, treatmentthe complainants are very frustrated and shocked with the behaviour and given by the respondent company with them to whom complainants had paid around 12 Crore in their projects along with the booking of properties.

4. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the complainants are investors. The case of the complainant does not fall within the ambit of explanation amended to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) which lays down that commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of .self-employment

5. This view neatly dovetails with the judgment passed by this Commission, in case titled, , wherein it was held: - Chilkuri Adarsh Vs. ESS ESS VEE Constructions, III (2012) CPJ 315

Arguments of the learned Counsel have been considered. However, we are of the view that the complaint as presented cannot be maintained before a Consumer Fora, like ours, as the agreement was for the construction of two showrooms, which obviously relate to commercial purpose and the complainant, therefore, will not come within the definition of a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This has been the consistent view of this Commission. It has held that even when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises; it amounts to booking of such premises for . This Commission in the case of investment/commercial purpose Jagmohan , in a somewhatChabra and another Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., IV (2007) CPJ 199 similar case held that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It had, therefore, disposed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach Civil Court. The said order has since been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 6030-6031 of 2008, filed before the Supreme Court stands dismissed, vide Apex Court order dated 29.09.2008.

6. It is apparent that the complainants have purchased these six houses for the commercial purpose. In case such like complainants are allowed to save the court fee, the very purpose of ordinary consumer or as defined by the act shall stand defeated. We find that the present case is not maintainable and therefore, the same is dismissed in limine. However, we reserve the right of the Complainants to approach appropriate Forum/Civil court to seek redressal of their grievances, if so advised. The complainants may take advantage of the rule of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [(1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases to seek exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this complaint before this Commission. 583]

......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER