Haryana

Karnal

CC/115/2016

Amit Kumar S/o Gian Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Narinder Sukhan

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.115 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 12.04.2016

                                                         Date of decision:13.03.2018

 

1.  Amit Kumar son of Shri Gian Chand,

2. Smt.Santosh wife of Shir Gian Chand, both residents of E-82, Polutry Area Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainants.

                                        Versus

 

1. Ansal Housing and Construction Limited, 15, U.G.F. Indra Prakash, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.

2. Ansal Town, Sector-36, Karnal through its Manager.

3. Chief Town Planner, Department of Town & Country Planning, Haryana, SCO 71-75, 1^st floor, Sector-17C, Chandigarh.

4. District Town & Country Planner, HUDA Complex, Sector-12, Karnal.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms Veena Rani…..Member

              Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

Present  Shri N.K.Sukhan Advocate for complainants.

                Shri Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for OPs no. 1& 2.

                OPs no.3 and 4 exparte. 

 

 

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainants purchased the plot no.C-90 from Shri Ranbir Singh, Sector-05, Karnal who was the allottee of this plot. The allottee had informed the complainants that there was no outstanding amount against this plot. OPs vide letter dated 24.11.2012 had informed that plot no.C-90 stands transferred in the name of complainants and the amount of Rs.one lakh stands credited in the name of complainants. After transfer of plot, the complainants had obtained statement of account on 30.11.2012 and as per this statement nothing was due against the complainants. OPs vide letter dated 24.1.2013 was illegally demanding additional E.D.C. @ 445-per sq. yard and also charging 21% per annum interest on enhanced amount of outstanding E.D.C. against the policy and guidelines of Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana and also demanded utility charges, registration fees etc. The complainants visited the office of OPs several times with the request to withdraw the letter dated 24.1.2013, being wrong, illegal, null and void and is not binding upon the rights of complainants. But OPs had not given any response. OP no.2 vide email dated 30.4.2014 sent statement of account of complainants informing the outstanding amount of utility charges Rs.55756/- and interest Rs.15,240/-. No other dues were shown in this statement. Complainant again visited the office of OP no.2 and OP no.2 assured the complainant that interest on utility charges will be waived off and requested to deposit the amount of utility charges without interest and accordingly the complainant no.1 deposited the outstanding amount of utility charges without interest for Rs.55756/- on same day i.e. on 30.4.2014. On 10.7.2014 OP no.2 vide email has sent statement of account of the said plot and informed that there was nothing due against the said plot. On 27.10.2015 the complainant had received a telephone call from the OP no.2 and it was informed by the OP no.2 that various charges are due against the said plot and need to be cleared immediately. The complainant no.1 had requested the OP no.2 to provide detailed statement in that regard. OP no.2 had provided detailed account statement and showing the outstanding dues i.e. Ansal Club-security deposit Rs.33333/-, Ansal Club fee Rs.20,000/-, Additional EDC Rs.88613/-, Ansal Club Service tax Rs.2472/- and interest 13983/- , the total amounting to Rs.1,58,399/-. While before and after the date of transfer of the plot the outstanding amount against the plot in question was nil and so stated by the OPs vide letter dated 24.11.2012 and vide statement dated 10.07.2014, therefore, the amount demanded by the OPs is illegal and in appropriate. The complainants requested the OPs many times to withdraw the illegal demand of additional EDC, Club Membership fee etc. but the OPs have not given any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, complainants filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement stating therein that as per the application for change in Right to Purchase a Property Form dated 31.10.2012, the complainant had agreed to pay the balance dues including interest and all future dues related to property. It is further stated that vide letter dated 24.11.2012 the complainant was informed that the unit has been transferred in the name of the complainant, and the complainant became bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 16.4.2011. Complainants have not complied with the communications, call notices and reminders dated 24.1.2013, 8.3.2013, 6.9.2014, 10.11.2015, 8.1.2016, 31.3.2016, 24.6.2016. Further vide clause VI of the Allotment Letter, the complainants have the knowledge that the complainants shall pay maintenance charges. It is further stated that vide letter dated 24.1.2013 the complainants were offered the possession subject to clearing the outstanding dues and a detailed description of the dues were explained in the attached statement. The complainants had to make payment of the balance dues within 30 days from the date of the said letter. It is pertinent to mention that neither the complainants approached the OP and nor did he clear the outstanding dues. That vide application for change in Right to Purchase a Property Form dated 31.10.2012 the complainants had agreed to pay all balance dues including interest and all future dues related to property. It is further stated that vide letter dated 6.9.2014 the complainants were informed about the club membership. However, the complainants did not raise any non-consent/objection, it is now that the complainants are raising this issue in the present complaint. It is pertinent to mention that as per the said statement of account no dues towards the Basic Cost of the Unit was due, however the allied charges as per the agreed and signed terms of the Allotment Letter were due towards the complainant. As per the Application for Change in Right to Purchase a Property Form dated 31.10.2012 the complainants had agreed to pay all balance dues including interest and all future dues related to property. Further, vide Clause VI of the Allotment Letter the complainants had the knowledge that the complainants shall pay maintenance charges for the maintenance of Township. It is further submitted that vide allotment letter dated 16.4.2011 the complainants have full knowledge of the dues payable to the OP. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C36 and closed the evidence on 20.06.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Aakritee Tiwari Ex.OP1/A and documents OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 27.9.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             During the arguments it is pointed out by the OPs that the value of the subject matter of this complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as the value of the subject matter is more than Rs.20 lakhs.

7.             On the perusal of the record i.e.Ex.C5, it is clear that the valuation of the plot no.C-090 purchased by the complainant was Rs.19,91,300/-. Besides this the complainant has sought the compensation of Rs.one lakh on account of mental tension pain and agony. If the amount of compensation of Rs.one lakh is added in the value of the plot the same exceeds Rs.20 lakhs. It is pertinent to mention here that according to the complainants themselves the OPs have demanded Rs.1,58,399/- as mentioned in para no.12 of the complaint. These amount includes Rs.88,613/- on account of Additional EDC. It is further pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel for OPs made a statement that the matter regarding enhanced EDC is pending in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the EDC charges will be demanded after the decision by the Hon’ble High Court and at present the OPs are not demanding the EDC charges. If the amount of additional EDC as demanded by the OPs is excluded even then the value of the subject matter for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction is more than Rs.20lakhs (i.e. Rs.19,91,300/-+Rs.1,00,000/-+Rs.69,786/-).  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 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.”

Issue no.(iii)

        The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered alongwith the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum.

8.             In view of the above authority and without going into any other merits of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed 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:13.03.2018                                              President

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

   (Veena Rani)      (Anil Sharma)

                        Member             Member