Haryana

Karnal

CC/231/2017

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Housing And Construction Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajan Gupta

01 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.231 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 20.07.2017

                                                         Date of decision:01.03.2018

 

Parveen Kumar son of Shri Jai Kishan resident of 19/340, Ashoka Colony, Karnal 7015019617.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Ansal Housing and Construction Limited, 15, U.G.F. Indra Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi at present at IInd floor, GNG Tower, Building no.10, Sector-44, New HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Chief Executive Officer.

2. Sunrise Estate Management Services, Head Office, 115 Indra Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-11001 through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President

              Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

 Present  Shri Rajan Gupta Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Dinesh Chauhan Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased a plot no.A-091 located in the Housing Plan of the OP no.1 from Shri Hari Krishan son of Shri Jagdish Parshad Gupta who happened to be the original allottee of the said plot in question in Ansal Town belonging to the OP no.1, who had developed the said Ansal Town and had charged all admissible cost of the plot including EDC, PLC and IDC charges and any other charges applicable as per the terms and conditions settled between the original allotted and OP no.1. The plot in question was measuring 502.30 sq.yards, the complainant had paid full and final amount of Rs.31,49,923.36/-and after recording of the said transfer between the complainant and Shri Hari Krishan, the OP no.1 gave recognition of being a re-allottee. OP no.1 informed the complainant at the time of re-allotment that the said plot shall lie in the corner and will have special attraction and value of being a corner plot and further the OP no.1 had showed some land as undeveloped land adjoining the location of the plot no.A-091. Now OP no.1 selling the said land illegally by violating the rights of the complainant who was assured that there shall be no further plotting in that piece of undeveloped area and the value of the complainant’s plot has been adversely diminished. Complainant wanted to construct the plot in question, but there was no basic infrastructure like developed and maintained parks, proper and functioning community centre, no maintained roads, no arrangements for proper security, no schools, no market place, total absence of any commercial centre, lack of human inhabitation, no maintenance of street lights, no policing by the local authority and further absolutely isolated environment without any neighborhood. It is pertinent to mention here that even in the present day i.e. year 2017 after more than seven years of launch of Ansal Town belonging to OP no.1, there is absolutely no infrastructure development in that place. It is further alleged that OP no.2 raised an outstanding dues of more than Rs. five lakhs, thereafter, the complainant had requested the OPs to withdraw the said illegal bill and has contacted the representative of OP no.1 but OPs no.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; pecuniary jurisdiction; limitation; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that all the basic infrastructure is already developed on the site like parks, roads, 24x7 security, galleria market, street light and all the basic need and infrastructure properly maintainable by the OP. Approximately 60 plus families are residing presently within the township and other new houses are under construction at site. School buses are running in proper way by many schools for township. It is pertinent to mention here that the said township of the OP is fully developed and connecting roads are very good in condition and the township is adjoining with other townships development. It is denied that there shall be no further plotting in the piece of the undeveloped area lying adjoining to the plot no.A-91 rather it is submitted that the complainant has purchased this unit in resale, therefore, there was no question of any commitment that this unit is a corner unit. Moreover, on the contrary it is submitted that the OP no.1 has full right to purchase only piece of land any time for further development which is not illegal one. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.5,88,129/- is rightly  against the complainant which is required to be rightly and legally paid by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Today i.e 1.3.2018 the case is fixed for consideration on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. Arguments of both the parties on that point heard.

4.             Without going into any other controversy on merits of the case, it is necessary to decide firstly that whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint or not?

5.             According to the pleading of the complainant as mentioned in para no.2 of the complaint that the basic sale price of plot in question which was allotted to the complainant is Rs.31,49,923.36/-.

6.             From the above facts of the case, it is clear that the cost of the plot in question is Rs.31,49,923.36/- lakhs i.e. beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. The argument of the complainant that the relief claimed is less than Rs.20 lakhs so this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction has no force because for the pecuniary jurisdiction, the total value of the plot is to be taken into consideration. In this regard we can rely upon the authority cited in 2016 (4) CLT-133 (NC) titled as Parikshit Parasher Versus Universal Buildwell Private Limited & Ors. wherein it is mentioned in para no.1 of the order by the Hon’ble National Commission that vide order dated 24.5.2016 passed in CC no.97 of 2016, following issues ( i.e. the issues which are mentioned in para no.1 of the order) relating to the interpretation of section 12(1)( C) of the C.P. Act were referred by a two members bench of this Commission (National Commission), to a larger Bench for its decision. It is further mentioned in para no.2 of the order by the Hon’ble National Commission that vide order dated 11.8.2016, passed in first appeal no.166 of 2016, first appeal no.504 of 2016 and first appeal no.505 of 2016, the following issues (i.e. the issues which are mentioned in para no.2 of the order) were referred by single member bench of this Commission to the larger bench. The relevant issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is issue no.1 which was referred vide order dated 11.8.2016 by single member bench to the larger bench. It is pertinent to mention here that the larger bench of the Hon’ble National Commission has decided the issue no.1 regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction in para no.14 and para no.15 of this authority which is as under:-

Para no.14

“Reference order dated 11.8.2016

Issue no.(i)

 It is evident from a bare perusal of section 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hire or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, it is this commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lakhs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  Similarly, if for instance a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crores, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing these defects is Rs.5.00 lakhs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.” 

Para no.15 “For the reasons stated herein above, the references are answered as under:-

Reference dated 11.8.2015

Issue no.(i)

        It is the value of the goods or services as the case may be and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.”

7.             In view of the above authority, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. Hence without going into any other controversy between the parties, we hereby dismiss the present complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint in the court of the competent jurisdiction as per provision of law. However, in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Forum while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint in the court of competent jurisdiction. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:01.03.2018                                              President

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

   (Anil Sharma)

                        Member