Date of Decision : 08.01.2019
COMPLAINT NO.1549/18
Roopak Malik S/o. Shri M.l. Malik1.
Majula Malika W/o. Shri Roopak Malik2.
Both r/o. W-75, G.K.II, New Delhi-48. …..Complainants
VERSUS
Mr. Sandeep Chillar, Managing Director, M/s. Land Mark Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Through Managing Director, Mr. Sandeep Chillar,
Regd. Off:A-8, CR Park, New Delhi-23. .....Opposite party
CORAM
Hon'ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Yes/No
1
Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
JUDGEMENT
It is not necessary to refer to all the pleas of the complainant. The reason being that Clause-4 of MOU dated 30.11.10 at page 15 for paying Rs.54,430/- as assured return per month payable quarterly to the complainant till the date of possession is sufficient to take the case out of preview of Consumer Protection Act. This question was considered by National Commission in CC No.246/13 titled as Preeti Arroa vs. ARN Infrastructure decided on 01.04.17.
1.
The conduct of the complainant shows that they were not interested in possession of the flat. They have been waiting from booking done in 2008 till filing of complaint in 018. They appear to be investor who wanted to make a recurring return from the property booked by them. They do not require the property for their on use. This makes the transaction commercial.
2.
The OP paid assured return till June, 2013. The assured return was revised to Rs.73,480/- per quarter to each complainant. The OP deducted Rs.3,71,000/- for EDC, IDC and Rs.3,21,000/-towards balance of basic sale price, out of Rs.8,81,760/- which was due on account of assured return till December, 2014 and paid the rest of the amount. Till June, 2018 Rs.23,51,360/- became due on account of assured return. The complaint is dismissed in limine.
3.
Copy of the order be sent both the parties free of cost.4. File be consigned to record room.
(O.P. GUPTA)
MEMBER
(JUDICIAL)
2