1. Raglan Infrastructure Limited, Circular Arcade, near Railway Crossing, ZirakpurShimla Highway, Dhakoli, Zirakpur (NAC), through its Managing Director. 2. Managing Director, Raglan Infrastructure Limited, Circular Arcade, near Railway Crossing, ZirakpurShimla Highway, Dhakoli, Zirakpur (NAC), ...Respondents. First Appeal against the order dated 07.10.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Before: Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member. Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member. ................................... Present: Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER: Sh. Ajay Dewan, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 07.10.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short "the District Forum"). First Appeal No.2012 of 2010 2 2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), making the averments that in pursuance of the advertisement of the respondents, he booked a flat in Gulmohar City Extension, Dera Bassi and Apartment No.85, MIG, Super Flats, 3rd Floor of Tower D4 was allotted to him. At the time of booking, the appellant paid Rs.51,000/ and the total cost of the flat was Rs.14,01,000/. The remaining payment was to be made as per payment plan mentioned in the allotment letter. 3. The appellant thereafter deposited a sum of Rs.1.75 lacs on 23.10.2006. The construction of the flat had not started, at all, even after making the payment of more than Rs.2.25 lacs and the appellant stopped payment of the balance installments, as no progress in the construction had taken place. Respondent no.1 has given the undertaking that the township and building work will start in the month of January, 2007 and the delivery of the apartment will be given latest by September, 2009. 4. Respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the contract and misrepresented the appellant with regard to starting of the construction. The appellant purchased the said plot for the comfort of the family, but respondent no.1 delayed the project. The appellant time and again wrote to respondent no.1 and also visited the office of respondent no.1, but no satisfactory answer was given nor any reply was filed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.1 and it caused lot of harassment, mental agony and tension to the appellant. The respondents vide letter dated 08.04.2010, instead of completing the construction and handing over the possession, rather First Appeal No.2012 of 2010 3 cancelled the allotment of the appellant and also forfeited the money deposited by the appellant. The respondents have not handed over the possession as per the contract and calling for the payment of balance installments, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 5. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay Rs.2.25 lacs along with interest @ 24% from the date of receipt of the amount till realization and to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.25,000/ as litigation expenses. 6. In the written version filed on behalf of the respondents, preliminary objections were taken that the appellant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable, as no cause of action has arisen to the appellant. The respondents have not made any breach of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 24.09.2006 executed between the parties and the terms and conditions are binding on bot