JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Plot No.B-C067 admeasuring 359 sq. yards (300 sq. mtrs.) in Ansal Golf Link, Greater Noida was booked by one Ms. Rajni Bhatia with opposite party No.1 – Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. vide application dated 22-04-1996. The booking was later transferred from Rajni Bhatia to one Mrs. Geeta Singhal. Subsequently, vide letter dated 08-05-1997      Mrs. Geeta Singhal requested the opposite party No.1 to transfer the booking in the name of the complainant Shri Somendar Gautam. The aforesaid change was allowed and a letter dated 09-05-1997 was issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant, confirming the said transfer. This was followed by an allotment letter dated 04-09-1998, allotting plot No.75 in block B admeasuring 359 sq. yards to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.1800.05/- per sq. yard. The total consideration on the aforesaid basic sale price came to Rs.6,46,217.95/-. The case of the complainant is that on shifting from the place where he was residing at the time of allotment made to him, he had intimated the new address to the opposite party on telephone followed by a letter dated 26-06-2000. The new address of the complainant was 2, Apple Cross Lane,
Setauket, New York – 11733. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the aforesaid plot has not been given to him by the opposite party, which amounts to deficiency in the services rendered as well as adoption of unfair trade practices. The complainant has so far made payment of Rs.5,95,350.83/-. Being aggrieved from the possession of the aforesaid plot not being given to him, the complainant approached this Commission by way of this complaint seeking the following reliefs:

(i)      allow the complaint and consequently direct the opposite parties to hand over possession of “plot in question” namely plot No.B-C075 at Golf Links – I, Greater Noida to the complainant;

(ii)      in case, opposite parties have unscrupulously/clandestinely allotted the said plot in question to some third person, opposite parties be then directed to cancel that allotment and handover the possession of the plot to complainant;

(iii)     direct the opposite parties to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as damages for causing unnecessary harassment, agony and trouble deliberately caused to the complainant by the negligent, deliberate act of the opposite parties in cancelling the plot in question;

(iv)    direct the opposite parties to pay cost of entire litigation to the complainant.

2.      The complaint has been opposed by the opposite parties inter alia on the ground that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

3.      The jurisdiction clause contained in the complaint reads as under:

          “The loss of plot in question has caused very dearly to the complainant. Although the loss is insurmountable and cannot be equated in terms of money, but the apparent loss is to the tune of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. Apart from this the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards mental harassment, agony and the like. Cumulatively, therefore, Rs.1,50,00,000/- is the pecuniary value of the complaint. This Hon’ble Commission, therefore, has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. Even otherwise market value of the property is around Rs.1,50,00,000/-”

4.      The complaint contains no specific averment as regards the market value of the plot in question as on the date of the filing of the complaint though it has been vaguely alleged in the jurisdiction clause as reproduced hereinabove that the loss of the complainant was to the extent of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

5.      When this complaint came up for hearing on 01-12-2014, and it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the complainant that this Commission would not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint he took adjournment so as to verify the market rate of the plot in question on the date of filing of the complaint and also to ascertain the circle rates applicable on that date.

6.      The learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainant has not been able to verify the said market rate and he needs some more time for this purpose. The opposite party on the other hand has filed a copy of the circle rates issued by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, fixing the circle rates inter alia in various localities of Greater Noida with effect from 01-09-2008. As per the above referred circular the circle rate in Golf Link-I where the plot in question is situated, was fixed at Rs.18,000/- per sq. mtr.. This complaint has been filed on 05-11-2007. Therefore, the circle rate for Golf Link-I, on the date of filing of the complaint could not have been more than Rs.18,000/- per sq. mtr.. Computed accordingly the market value of the plot in question, on the date of filing of the complaint comes to Rs.54,00,000/-. We would like to mention here that this is not the specific case of the complainant, anywhere in the complaint or in the affidavit filed by him by way of evidence that the market value of the plot in question was more than Rs.18,000/- per sq. mtr. on the date this complaint was filed. No sale deed evidencing any sale transaction in Golf Link-I of Greater Noida has been filed by the complainant. He has also not filed the affidavit of any property dealer or an approved valuer in this regard. In fact the opposite party has filed the copy of a sale deed executed on 17-11-2007, whereby the plot measuring 300 sq. mtrs. in Golf Link-I was sold for a consideration of Rs.46,50,000/-. In our opinion, in the absence of sale deeds evidencing transactions of sale in Golf Link-I around the time the complaint came to be filed, the circle rates would be the best indicator of the market value of the plot in question. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the market value of the plot allotted to the complainant was not more than Rs.54,00,000/- on the date this complaint was filed.

7.      Even if we add the entire amount of compensation claimed by the complainant to the market value determined on the basis of the circle rate the aggregate comes to Rs.89,00,000/- only. Therefore, this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

8.      The learned counsel for the complainant refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh v/s Healing Touch Hospital (2000) 7 SCC 668. He relies particularly upon the view taken in para 15 of the judgment which reads as under:

          “That apart, in the present case, complaint petition filed by the appellant for compensation was pending before the National Consumer Forum for six long years. The pleadings had been completed. The National Consumer Forum should have taken the complaint to its logical conclusion by asking the parties to adduce evidence and rendered its findings on merits. A mathematical calculation based only on the amount of salary being drawn by the appellant could not be the sole factor to be into consideration to style the claim of the appellant "unrealistic" or "exaggerated" or "excessive". The appellant has virtually condemned unheard after waiting for six long years. The legislative intent, for enacting the legislation, of a speedy summary trial, to settle the claim of the complainant (consumers) has been respected in its breach. The spirit of the benevolent legislation has been overlooked and its object frustrated by non-suiting the appellant in the manner in which it has been done by the National Consumer Forum. The consumer forums must take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before them and not keep them pending for years. It would defeat the object of the Act if summary trials are not disposed of expeditiously by the forums at the District, State or National levels. Steps in this direction are required to be taken in the right earnest.”

9.       The aforesaid decision in our view is of no help to the complainant considering that even after adding the gross compensation claimed by him to the market value as determined on the basis of the circle rates this Commission would not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complainant has to blame only himself for creating a situation, where the complaint filed by him has to be returned after seven years. He ought to have filed it before the State Commission in the first instance itself.

10.     For the reasons stated herein above, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant to be presented before the concerned State Commission. As and when presented the complaint shall be dealt with by the State Commission in accordance with law and in the light of the pleadings filed and the evidence led by the parties. Considering the age of the complaint, the State Commission will decide it as expeditiously, as may be feasible and preferably within three months of its being presented.