Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dev Raj, (Presiding Member) and Padma Pandey

ORDER

Padma Pandey, Member

1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant wished to have her own independent house near city beautiful Chandigarh/Mohali for her two children for their future upbringing & quality education, decided to buy the plot in the project of the Opposite Parties. The complainant purchased plot bearing No. 152, measuring 300 sq. yds. in Central Greens, Sector 105 and the total sale price of the plot, in question, was fixed at Rs. 40,82,394/-. It was stated that the complainant also purchased one more plot from the Opposite Parties for her second child, for which, separate complaint is being preferred. The complainant made the payment of Rs. 10,35,000/- as booking/registration amount to be paid to one Sh. Rakesh Gupta, authorized person for M/s. M.M. Agritech Pvt. Ltd., from whom, the complainant bought the plot, in question, through the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, Plot Buyer Agreement was signed and executed between the parties at Chandigarh on 20.06.2007. As per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the plot was to be given within a maximum period of three years i.e. latest by 20.06.2010. Thereafter, the aforesaid plot was transferred in the name of the complainant vide letter dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure C-2). The complainant paid the total amount of Rs. 40,82,395/- to the Opposite Parties in respect of the plot, in question. It was further stated that from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 40,82,395/-, the payment of Rs. 19,20,143/- was paid by the complainant by taking a loan. It was further stated that despite receipt of the huge amount from the complainant and repeated visits & letters/emails, the Opposite Parties failed to give possession of the plot, in question. Copies of the emails and letters are Annexure C-7 (Colly.). It was further stated that permissions for raising colony/development of the land is not there. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act' only), was filed.

2. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, have taken objection regarding arbitration clause in the Agreement, and also, they separately, moved an application u/s. 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 taking a specific objection in this regard for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of "Consumer", as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the complainant is residing in her house at Phagwara and she is a speculator, as she purchased multiple properties with the Opposite Parties for commercial purposes. It was further stated that the complainant purchased plot bearing No. 104-AG-109 having total consideration of Rs. 54,00,472/-, which is subject matter of CC/828/2017 and in addition, the complainant also purchased plot bearing No. 109-AG-104-400 for Rs. 54,00,472/-, which was cancelled on 02.05.2016. It was further stated that the complainant also purchased three commercial units for total consideration of Rs. 98,15,040/-, Rs. 1,06,08,014/- and Rs. 66,93,940/- respectively, which were also cancelled on 01.11.2013 (Exhibit OP/2 colly.). It was further stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, as the property is situated at Mohali, registered office of the Opposite Parties is at New Delhi and as per settled law, a Company can be sued only at the place its registered office is located. It was further stated that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint, as the value of the plot and compensation including interest exceeds Rs. 1 crore. It was further stated that the complaint was time barred, as it has been filed more than 2 years after ........