BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

CONSUMER CASE NO. 2824 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAKESH AGARWAL ……. COMPLAINANT

Versus

GODREJ PROPERTIES LTD. AND ORS. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

INDEX
S.No. Contents Pg. No.

1. SHORT SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMNETS ON BEHALF OF 2-5

OPPOSITE PARTY NOS. 1 AND 2

Place: New Delhi

Date: OPPOSITE PARTY NOS. 1 & 2

THROUGH

Pragyan Pradip Sharma,

Anoop George,
Kartikay Dutta, Advocates
B5/65, First Floor,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi- 110029
Tel: 011-41030707
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
CONSUMER CASE NO. 2824 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAKESH AGARWAL ……. COMPLAINANT
Versus
GODREJ PROPERTIES LTD. AND ORS. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

SHORT SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMNETS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE

PARTY NOS. 1 AND 2
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
A. OBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT
A1. That the Complaint is sheer abuse of the process of law which has no legal standing and
deserves immediate dismissal. It has been filed only to harass and extort money from the
Opposite Parties.

B. THE PRESENT COMPLAINT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION

OF THIS HON’BLE COMMISSION
B1. That the present complaint does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission
as per Section 21 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant sought a
refund of the entire amount of Rs.16,34,053/- (Rupees Sixteen lakh Thirty-Four Thousand
and Fifty Three Only) deposited by him with the Opposite Parties and further, a
Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) along with the litigation cost of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) which adds up to Rs.21,84,053/- (Rupees
Twenty One Lakh Eighty-Four Thousand and Fifty Three Only) and the same is below the
pecuniary jurisdiction amount of this Hon’ble Commission i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees
One Crore Only). Hence, the present complaint should be dismissed on this sole ground
only.

C. THE COMPLAINANT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT A CONSUMER

C1. That the present case is not governed by the Act since the Complainant in the instant case
is not a consumer in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It is important to note that the
booking of said Unit was exclusively for investment purposes and not for residential
purposes. It is evident from Section J of the Application form wherein the Complainant
himself has made it clear that the “Purpose of Purchase” is “Investment”. The
Complainant since the booking has never raised any objection that he did not sign Section
J of the Application form. It can be stated that the Complainant has signed the Application
form voluntarily and with his free consent without any undue influence or coercion. the
Complainant in the prayer (a) of the present Complaint corroborated that the said Unit has
 been booked only for investment purposes and the amount of Rs.16,34,053/- which was
paid for the said Unit is an investment by the Complainant.
C2. It is a well-settled law that if the Complainant is only an investor in the unit in question
for earning commercial benefit, then he would not be within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)
of the Act. Hence, the Complainant in the present case is not a consumer, and therefore,
the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

D. SUPPRESSION OF FACTS BY THE COMPLAINANT

D1. It is stated that despite opting for the construction-linked payment plan for the said Unit,
the Complainant has been defaulting in payment of installments of the said Unit and the
said fact has been suppressed. Opposite Party No.2 sent several reminders for the payment
of installments to the Complainant which the Complainant has not paid.
D2. It is submitted that the Complainant did not have the financial capacity to buy the said
Unit. However, with a greedy mindset to earn short-term market gains, the Complainant
invested in the said Unit with the clear strategy to sell it further and encash the market
premium. It is submitted that for the issuance of an Allotment letter, 20% of the ‘Basic Sale
Price had to be paid by a consumer under Clause 15 of the Application form. The
Complainant paid only Rs.16,34,053/- which is less than 20% of the amount
Rs.1,34,29,000/ and the said fact is suppressed by him.
D3. Even though Opposite Party No.2 reserved the right to cancel the booking of the said Unit
and forfeit the entire amount, being a customer-centric organization has provided ample
opportunities vide reminder letters dated 19.02.2015 and 19.03.2015. The invoices dated
19.02.2015 and 19.03.2015 were also raised which the Complainant has suppressed
deliberately. The same is available at Pg 38 of the Amended WS of OP1 and OP2.
D4. The Opposite Party No. 2 issued the Apartment Buyers Agreement to the Complainant for
signing purposes. The Complainant failed to sign and return the Apartment Buyers
Agreement and it is relevant to mention that the Complainant has not annexed the Buyer
Agreement and caused prejudice against the Opposite Parties and has suppressed the
material facts from this Hon'ble Commission.
D5. It is submitted that the Notice dated 25.05.2015 issued by the Complainant was false,
frivolous, and misconceived which was duly replied by the Opposite Parties on 18.06.2015.
It is to be pointed out that the Complainant has intentionally not placed on record the reply
dated 18.06.2015 and again suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission.

E. DEFAULT ON DUE PAYMENTS

E1. The Complainant made a payment of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs) at the time of
booking even though he was liable to make a payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven
Lakh) as per the opted payment plan and has admitted the same in Para 5.4 of the
Complaint.
E2. It is clarified that the Application Form of the Complainant was accepted by the Opposite
Party No. 2, with a lesser amount by way of an exception, but this was subject to the
Complainant’s assurance that he will strictly adhere to the terms of the Application Form
 including the payment plan. Despite this, the Complainant has defaulted in making timely
payments.
E2. It is important to note that the excavation work on the site was started in November 2014
and accordingly a demand/invoice letter dated 18.11.2014 was sent to the Complainant.
The Complainant failed to make payments as specified in the said demand/invoice letter
and also against all subsequent demands/invoices.
E3. Due to default by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties have suffered damages and
incurred loss. It is stated that the timely delivery of the project depends upon timely
payment by the consumers. It is respectfully submitted that the answering Opposite Parties
seek liberty from this Hon’ble Commission to take appropriate legal remedies against the
Complainant for recovery of loss and damages over and above forfeiting the earnest money
paid by the Complainant.
E4. A sum of Rs.1,24,35,968/-(Rupees One Crore Twenty-Four Lakh Thirty-Five Thousand
Nine Hundred and Sixty-Eight only) was due against the Complainant as
of 12.01.2016 along with interest of Rs.40,76,736/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Seventy-Six
Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty-Six only) on the due amount as on 12.01.2016. Due
to omission, demand for the completion of the 2nd-floor slab was not raised. This fact has
to be taken into consideration while calculating the actual due amount and interest payable.
Statement of account and interest is already submitted and is at Pg 36 of the Amended
WS of OP1 and OP2.
E5. The Opposite Parties raised a demand of Rs.10,34,053/- vide invoice
dated 14.05.2014 payable by 01.06.2014 including the previous amount of Rs. 1,06,816/-
within 30 days of the booking. The Complainant failed to deposit the amount of
Rs.11,40,869/- (Rs. 10,34,053/- + Rs. 1,06,816/-) within time provided by Opposite
Parties. It is submitted that the Complainant deposited the amount of Rs.10,34,053/- on
20.06.2014 with the Opposite Parties after a considerable delay and are available at Pg 65
and 66 of the Amended WS of OP1 and OP2.
E6. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.1 sent an e-mail dated 25.08.2014 stating the only
tentative time to issue the the-Allotment letter which was subject to payment of 20% of the
BSP and should be read with the e-mail dated 17.09.2014. It is stated that the e-mail
dated 17.09.2014 was explicit in itself wherein the Complainant was duly informed that
the Allotment letter would be issued only after the pre-requisite payment of 20% of the
BSP.

F. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
F1. It is submitted that the development rights in respect to the Project land ‘were granted by
the land owner Opposite Party No. 3 in favour of Opposite Party No. 1 vide Development
Agreement dated 02.08.2013. Thereafter, when the necessary approvals from the
concerned Competent Authority were obtained and Phase-1 of the project was launched. It
was mutually decided amongst the parties to the Development Agreement that the said
Project be developed through a Limited Liability Partnership where the Opposite Party No.
1 is the Managing Partner. The Development Agreement dated 02.08.2013 was cancelled
 vide a registered Deed of Cancellation dated 22.09.2014 duly registered with the Sub-
Registrar of Assurance under Sr. No. 15501 following which a new Development
Agreement dated 22.09.2014 was executed by Opposite Party no. 3 in favour of Opposite
Party no. 2. It is stated that the internal arrangement between the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2,
and 3 has not affected the rights and obligations of Complainant at all. It is pertinent to
mention here that since then, all the invoices have been raised by the Opposite Party No.2.

G. DAMAGE TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY’S REPUTATION

G1. The allegations of such severe nature without any basis are defamatory and made only to
prejudice this Hon’ble Commission. It is humbly submitted that any such tendencies to
apply pressure tactics against the bonafide Opposite Parties are only to avoid the
consequences of the breach of the contractual terms and conditions.
G2. The Opposite Party No.1 has established a prominent name in the real estate business
circles due to its uncompromising work ethic, honesty, quality of construction, and timely
delivery of its projects to the utmost satisfaction of its customers. This is evident from the
bare fact that the Opposite Party No. 1 has won innumerable accolades over the past years,
a few of which received in 2015 are referenced as under:
i. “Golden Peacock Award for Sustainability” for the year 2015;
ii. “Real-Estate Company of the Year” Award at the Construction Week India
Awards 2015;
iii. “Decade of Excellence” for being amongst the top builders of India over the past
ten years at the Construction World Awards;
iv. “Best Developer of the year 2015” Award at the Construction Times Award 2015.

H. It is submitted that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It
is stated that the purported cause of action is false, baseless, and frivolous for reasons stated
in the preceding paragraphs.
PRAYER

In view of the submissions made above, this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the
present complaint with costs.

Place: New Delhi

Date: OPPOSITE PARTY NOS. 1 & 2
THROUGH
Pragyan Pradip Sharma,
Anoop George, Kartikay Dutta, Advocates
B5/65, First Floor,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi- 110029
Tel: 011-41030707