Delhi

New Delhi

CC/229/2017

Arvind Kumar Srivastava - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

19 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

 

       CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                    (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

      ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C. 229/2017                                                             Dated:

In the matter of:

A.K. Srivastav

S/o Sh. K.K. Srivastav,

R/o B1/601,

Lotus Ponds Apartment

Vaibhav Khand, Indirapuram,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …… Complainant

Versus

 

            Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.

Registered Address

15  UGF Indra Prakash,

Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001

(through its Chief Managing Director) 

 

…….Opposite Party-1

 

            Blue Star Management Services

            1 A/ 169, Avasvikas Colony,

            Budhi Vihar, Delhi Road,

          Moradabad, U.P.

      (Through Mr. Ajay Jain Proprietor)

…….Opposite Party-2

 

 

                                                                                       

ORDER

H.M. VYAS, MEMBER

 

Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against M/s                   , hereinafter referred to as OP alleging deficiency in service.  It is stated that the complainant made a payment of Rs. 1,64,357/- on having booked a flat admeasuring 1263.50 sq. ft. with Basic Sale Price of Rs. 13,26,675/-  as per the agreement executed between the parties.  It is stated that the complainant has almost paid 100 % of the consideration but the possession not delivered by the OPs, nor any information on phone, e-mail or by post provided despite requests.  The complainant contacted the OP on 15/01/2013 to get updated status of the project, but of no avail and it was informed that he would be intimated  about it soon.  It is further stated he visited the project of the OP in October 2015 and was shocked to see that several families got the possession & were living there.  He inquired from the OP2 who was running the maintenance of OP-1 the reason of not giving the possession, the complainant was informed that he had no knowledge.  The complainant met the officer of the OP-1 on 20/10/2015 in this regard & it was informed during discussion that offer of possession was sent to him but later he admittd that no letter was sent.  Then the OP-1 agreed to waive of the payment charges of Rs. 60,000/- but raised the maintenance charges & holding charges of Rs. 1,64,357/-.  Later the demand for said amount was raised through letter dated 30/03/2016.  Repeated request of the complainant made to quash the demand proved futile. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs it was prayed as under:-

1. “Quash the demad notice dated 30/03/2016 of the OPs demanding unfairly a sum of Rs. 01,64,357/- without any reasonable cause.
2. To deliver the possession of the flat in the project of the OP 1 named as DSA 03, Ansal’s green Orchid, Aashiana, Sec-M, Kanpur Road, Scheme Lucknow-226003 immediately without any further delay.
3. To executed registered sale deed in respect the flat in the project of the OP -1 name as DSA 03, Ansal’s green Orchid, Aashiana, Sec-M, Kanpur Road, Scheme Lucknow-226003 in favour of the complainant.
4. Pay compensation for delayed possession calculated @ 24% p.a. on the amount paid by the complainant to OP from the due date of delivery of possession till actual date of delivery of possession to complainant.
5. Pay Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lacs) for compensation against the mental agony and harassment caused by the OPs to complainant.
6. Pay Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousands) against the cost of litigation.”

 

The OPs were noticed.The OP in written version has resisted the complaint and also raised the objection that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction as the subject matter of the case is of more than Rs. 20 lacs. An application under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act for dismissal of the complaint is also filed.No reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the complainant.Both the parties have addressed oral arguments on the application.The Ld. Counsel for the OP relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ambrish  Kumar Shukla & Ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd,. Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016,   The Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that this Forum has the pecuniary jurisdiction and complaint can be adjudicated.  Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 05/05/2017 of the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in the cases titled as Shruti Chhabra & anr Vs  M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developer Pvt. Ltd and Lalitha Saini Vs  M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developer Pvt. Ltd.  Ld counsel has argued that the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh decided the pecuniary jurisdiction vesting in there by excluding the interest component claimed by the complainant/party, and in line of the said argument  this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction.

It is vehemently argued by the Ld. counsel for the complaint that the application of the OP is without substance and prayed for rejection with cost.

            We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments of the parties with relevant provisions of Law.  We are of the considered view that the judgment of the Chandigarh State Commission is not applicable on this Forum in view of the fact that our own Hon’ble State Commission has in a catena of judgments has decided the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of the proposition of law laid down in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) & Vikul Kumar Gupta Vs. M/S Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Even otherwise, the facts of case relied by the Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission I.e. Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills, are at variance with case in hand.

            Paragraph 14 of the judgement of the  Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016, is reproduced below:-

It is evident from a bare perusal of Section 21, 17 and 11 of the  Consumer Protection Act and 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 hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1 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 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the consumer for the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10 lacs, 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 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1 crore.

The Hon’ble National Commission has taken similar view also in the case of Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Narayan Biswal (FA No. 1616/2017) decided on 30/08/17 and in the case of Raj Kishore Vs TDI reported as III(2017)CPJ 155.  

This view is also adopted by our own Hon’ble State Commission in Complaint Case no. 119/12 Ambica Steel Lts., Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vide orders dated 11/12/2017. On 11/09/2018 Hon’ble State Commission of Delhi in TC no. 41/2018 has observed that Ld. District Forum has no power to transfer the complaint directly  to this Commission. It can return the complaint to the complainant for presenting before this Commission.

In the light of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016, and other cases (supra) we are of the considered opinion that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and therefore, the complaint is directed to be returned to complainant with following particulars in the light of the decision  of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 .

• Presentation of complaint:-

Before this District Forum on -18/05/2017_________

• Date of return of complaint -               19/09/2018_
• The name of complainant(s) –              Arvind Kumar Srivastav

 

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 19/09/2018. 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                               (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                           MEMBER