1. The complainant has preferred the present case on the allegation that on 26.05.14 he booked a f la t in the project named Aaroyam in Village Badhedi Rajputana, situated in the Tehsil Roorkee, Distr ict Haridwar, Uttrakhand. Vide letter dated 07.06.14 OP-1 al lotted f lat no.F-010+010A having super area of 2160 sq. f t. Flat buyer agreement dated 17.07.14 was executed by OP -1 through OP-2 in favour of complainant. The OP was to hand over possession of the f lat within 48 months from the date of booking. The time frame for possession was tentat ive subject to force majeure. The total consideration of the f lat was Rs.73,89,000/ - + service tax towards basic sale price. Other charges were payable separately as per payment plan.
2. Annexure A to f lat buyer agreement pertained to assured return @12% per annum. The OP had not yet commenced with any development work at the site. Photos to that effect taken on 03.05.19 had been placed on record. The complainant had pa id Rs.69 lakhs. The Op committed fault in making payment of assured return. The OP had agreed to pay assured return to the complainant from the date of receipt of 50% payment t i l l hand over of possession of the f lat to the complainant. The OP paid assured return init ial ly (commencing from 18.08.14). Thereafter its stopped making payment from the month of September, 2016. From August, 2014 to March, 2016 the O P made monthly payments, less by Rs.998/ -. From April, 2016 to August, 2016 OP made monthly payments less by Rs.42,300/-. From September, 2016 the OP had made no payment whatsoever qua the assured return. As on date OPs liable to pay Rs.35,46,900/ -/- towards assured return whereas it had paid Rs.12,04,040/ - only leaving a balance of Rs.23,42,860/-.
3. Several cheques issued to complainant by OP-1 qua assured return have been dishonoured on account of insuff icient funds. OP -1 deducted TDS from the assured return but did not deposit the same regularly and fully with the Income Tax department. Complainant had to pay Rs.72,380/- on that account. Hence this complaint for direct ing OP to refund Rs.69 lakhs paid by him towards part payment of sale consideration, pay Rs.23,42,860/ - towards balance of assured return, pay Rs.72,380/- towards TDS deposited by complainant with Income tax department, pay compensation for mental harassment and agony, pay interest and lit igat ion cost.
4. The sole question which needs to be decided in this case as to what is the effect to agreement to pay assured return. This question is no more res integra in view of decision of the NC in Preeti Arora vs. ARN Infrastructure CC No.246/13 decided on 06.04.17. It was held in the said case that promise to pay assured return gives a colour of commercial booking. The reason being that i t shows that complainant was not a bonafide purchaser for residence. He was interested in earning money out of the investment made in the property. The same is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act.
5. Similar view was taken by NC in CC No.369/15 tit led as Rishi Malhotra vs. Blue Coast Infrastructure decided on 08.02.17.
6. In view of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed in l imine. Complainant may seek his remedies by way of regular suit in Civi l Court.
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
8. File be consigned to record room. (O.P. GUPTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)