Haryana

StateCommission

CC/173/2016

MANOJ KUMAR BATRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

INDERDEEP SINGH

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No: 173 of 2016

Date of Institution: 30.06.2016

Date of Decision: 14.09.2016

 

1.      Manoj Kumar Batra s/o Sh. Om Parkash Batra

2.      Harleen Kaur w/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Batra,

Both residents of Flat No.145-B, A-5, Pashim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.

                                      Complainants

Versus

Adel Landmarks Limited (formerly known as Era Landmarks Limited), Branch/site office, Sector 103, Cosmo City, Gurgaon, through its Director Sumit Bharana.

2^nd Address:

B-24, Sector 3, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

                                      Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                              

 

Present:              Shri R.S. Randhawa Advocate assisted by Shri Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate for complainants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

                       The present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Consumer Act’) has been filed by Manoj Kumar Batra and his wife Harleen Kaur-complainants, averring that they booked a flat with Adel Landmarks Limited  (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite Party, in the project namely “Cosmocity” in Sector-103, Gurgaon by depositing Rs.5,00,000/- on April 29^th, 2011.  The builder allotted flat No.CSM/103/T7-0604, to the complainants vide letter dated April 18^th, 2012.  However, the opposite party vide letter dated February 11^th, 2014 transferred the allotment of flat bearing No.CSM/103/H-0602, Cosmocity-II. The Basic Sale Price of the flat was Rs.59,16,551.74.                                                                         

 

 

The price of the flat was to be paid by the complainants as per Schedule of Payment.  The complainants paid the amount of Rs.24,14,651/- to the builder. The builder did not start construction. The complainants sought refund of the amount deposited by them. The builder refunded Rs.10,84,663/- but retained the amount of Rs.13,29,988/-. Hence, the instant complaint.

2.                Learned counsel for the complainants argued that though the amount of Rs.13,29,988/- is less than Rs.20.00 lacs, which falls within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, however since the complainants have also sought the interest and compensation, so by adding interest and compensation, the amount payable by the builder would work out to more than Rs.20.00 lacs and therefore this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. In support, reliance was placed upon Uma Shankar Bhatt versus Chairman-cum-Managing Director Punjab and Sind Bank, 2008(1) C.P.J. 31 and Ravi Marwah vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Private Limited, 2016(3)  CLT 20.

3.                The contention raised is not tenable. It is well settled principle of law that the interest cannot be added at initial stage to bring the case within the jurisdiction of State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be.  Support to this view can be had from the recent judgment in Consumer Case No.1369 of 2015, Ishita Bhatia and another versus M/s Unitech Limited and others, decided on March 07^th, 2016, wherein Hon’ble National Commission while relying upon its earlier decision by three judges Bench and Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“It is well settled that the interest cannot be added at this initial stage to bring the case within the jurisdiction of National Commission.  In three judges Bench judgment reported in Shahbad Co-operative Sugar Mills vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. II(2003) CPJ 81 (NC), it was clearly, specifically and unequivocally laid down that interest is not to be counted or added at this stage.  We are bound by the judgment of three judges Bench authority.  As per law laid down by five judges bench of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673,  we are bound to follow the judgment of three members.  Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act has crystalline clarity.  There is no mention of interest.  For interest, discretion of the Court is required as per law laid down in Supreme court authorities reported in Manjul Srivastava Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1758-1759 of 2002, JT 2008 (9) SC 584 and Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors. JT 2007 (4) SC 248.”

4.      This case is fully covered by Ishita Bhatia’s case (Supra). It is held that interest and compensation cannot be added at the initial stage to bring the case within the jurisdiction of State Commission because for interest, discretion of the Court is required as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjul Srivastava’s case.  Thus, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainants in Uma Shankar Bhatt’s and Ravi Marwah’s cases (Supra) have no applicability in the instant case.

5.                In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file the same before the Appropriate District Forum.  It would be open to the complainants to file an application before the District Forum under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding the period spent before this Commission for the purpose of computation of limitation in terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995)3 S.C.C. 583.

 

 

Announced 14.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL