C. Viswanath ORDER
C. Viswanath, (Presiding Member)
1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in CC No. 1450 of 2016 dated 04.01.2017.
2. In the Complaint case, it was stated that Appellant/Complainant booked two units (one for himself and his wife and the other for his children) bearing No. C-1117 and C-1217 in Block-C in Commercial Complex project named "Conscient One" which was to come up at Sector-109, Gurgaon (Haryana) from the Respondents/Opposite Parties. The Appellant paid Rs. 5 Lakhs each for the said units. On 20.07.2013 and 14.10.2013, Respondents sent demand letter for payment of Rs. 5,47,423/- each. On 15.10.2013, the Appellant paid Rs. 5,88,897/- for each flat and paid a total sum of Rs. 33,73,484/- for both the units till 15.10.2013. On 24.03.2015 after about two years, the Respondents sent Buyers Agreement to the Appellant to sign the same. In clause 8.3 of the Buyers Agreement, it was stated that duration of handing over the possession was 42 months with grace period of additional six months from the date of execution of agreement i.e. from 24 May, 2015. The specific understanding was conveyed to the Appellant that completion would be done within 36 months from the date of acceptance of advance. The Appellant signed the Buyers Agreement and sent it back to the Respondents, under duress. The Respondent sent demand letter dated 09.04.2013 for Rs. 2,32,237/- each. The Respondents sent letter dated 06.04.2016 asking for next instalment of Rs. 5,50,811/- per unit. With no hope of getting the units on time, the Appellant sent a legal notice dated 23 May, 2016 for cancellation of booking and refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest @18% per annum but with no response from the Respondents. Hence, the Complaint was filed.
3. The State Commission, vide order dated 04.01.2017, dismissed the Complaint at admission stage on the ground that the Appellant had himself mentioned that the Agreement provided for delivery of possession within 42 months with grace period of six months from date of execution of the Agreement. The Agreement bears the date 24.08.2015. Hence, the Appellant cannot seek possession before 24.08.2019. The Complaint filed in 2016 was premature. Secondly, it was also mentioned that the Respondents were to design, construct, promote market, own, sell, receive consideration and transfer Retail Units/Office Spaces/Units/Restaurants/Food Court Units etc. in the aforesaid Commercial Complex. The Appellant tried to twist the same by mentioning that it was for residential purpose. Office space was not covered under Consumer Protection Act and the Appellant did not make any averment that he booked the same for earning livelihood by self-employment.
4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the present Appeal has been filed before this Commission on the following grounds:
5. The State Commission had not appreciated the fact that the Appellant had already made substantial amount of payments to the Respondents. Under the threat of forfeiting the entire payments made by the Appellant, he had signed the Agreement under duress and the same cannot be held against him which was contrary to law.
6. The State Commission failed to take into account that in a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Commission had laid down that strict rules of evidence were not to be followed in Consumer Cases and even otherwise the Appellant cannot be put to disadvantage for being compelled to sign a document by the Respondent.
7. The Appellant categorically stated that the said units purchased were for his own personal residence and were not for any commercial purpose whatsoever and the same cannot be interpreted against the Appellant.
8. The State Commission erred in not appreciating that since the property in question were "service apartments" they could be constructed as part of a larger commercial structure and the same did not amou........