Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + Commission Indian Laws - 2022 (12) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 363 - Commission - Indian LawsConsumer Protection - Seeking hand over possession of the residential duplex flat to the Complainant - Complainant was promised by a settlement agreement a residential duplex flat in a real estate project labelled as Rajmahal Royal Residency Project, for his personal use - Section 21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Complainant invested the amount in the project as a partner. Subsequently the Complainant withdrew as a partner and requested Opposite Party No.2 for refund of his investment amount with interest. As Opposite Parties failed to refund the amount, the Complainant entered into an agreement dated 21.11.2006 wherein he was promised that he would be given a duplex flat in the project against his money invested in the project. As the project got delayed, the Complainant sought refund of the amount invested by him. The Complainant made investment of his money as a partner in the project and now he is seeking refund of that investment amount. The entire transaction between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties is commercial in nature. Refund of the amount sought by the Complainant is only extension of initial investment made by him, which is purely commercial in nature - By the Complainant’s own admission, vide settlement dated 21.11.2016 the said amount was agreed to be ‘accounted against’ the contractual promise for delivery to the Complainant of a duplex flat. The amount paid alongwith accrued interest was the consideration for the flat and the debt was discharged by the Opposite Parties through the promise to deliver the duplex flat to the Complainant. Entering into agreement for a duplex flat is only a sequence for realizing the invested amount with interest. Claim made by the Complainant is only for furtherance of gain for the original investment made. The Complainant being an investor is not a “Consumer” under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Consumer Complaint is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum.
|