DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

K.L. Sachdeva son of Late Sh. Jagan Nath Sachdeva, aged 64 years, resident of House No. 5905, Modern Housing Complex, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs

[1]  Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Regd. Office 15 UGF, Inderperkash, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

[2]  Pardeep Anand, Director of Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Regd. Office 15 UGF, Inderperkash, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

[3]  Kushagr Ansal, Director of Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Regd. Office 15 UGF, Inderperkash, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

[4]  Vipin Mehta, Office Incharge, Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Regd. Office 15 UGF, Inderperkash, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

[5]  Shalabh Makkar, Office Incharge, Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., SCO No. 817, N.A.C., Shivalik Enclave, Manimajra, Chandigarh – 160 101.

[6]  Lalit Kumar Arora, Office Incharge, SCO No. 817, N.A.C., Shivalik Enclave, Manimajra, Chandigarh – 160 101.

---- Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:    SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Balkar Singh, Counsel for Complainant.

Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.          The Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.19,81,593.50/- with the Opposite Parties for obtaining a flat in a project floated by them at Zirakpur. The Complainant has alleged that the Project is not yet complete and the Opposite Parties have failed to give the exact date of completion of project and delivery of possession. Meanwhile penal interest imposed on the Complainant by the Opposite Parties has been waived off by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have also charged Rs.51,000/- as club fees from the Complainant even though the Project is not yet complete. The Complainant has thus filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the Opposite Parties have not given him either the seniority list or details of penalties levied. Even concrete date regarding delivery of possession has not been given.

          The Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to allot the flat to him at the original booking price of Rs.23,30,110/-. The Complainant has also prayed for the refund of Rs.51,000/- as club charges, besides compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/-. The Complainant has also prayed that in case the Opposite Parties are unable to give possession of the booked flat within a reasonable stipulated period of one month, then the Opposite Parties be directed to refund the deposited amount, along with interest @24% p.a., besides other charges taken from him.   

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          The Opposite Parties in their joint reply have taken the preliminary objection that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter since apart from other charges the value of the Unit is Rs.23,30,110/-.

          On merits, Opposite Parties have stated that the Complainant has applied for a Flat vide application dated 22.09.2007 for allotment of two bedroom unit. Unit No. DOVE-202, 2^nd Floor, measuring 1198 sq. ft. had been allotted to the Complainant for a cost of Rs.23,30,110/- excluding other charges in terms of the allotment letter. The Complainant had read and understood every condition of the allotment and agreed to abide by the same as per the construction linked payment plan. However, the Complainant has himself breached the terms and conditions by not paying the outstanding dues despite various notices and reminders. Opposite Parties have also checked with the Complainant whether he wanted to opt for car parking. Fee for club membership and car parking were payable along with the payment plan. However the Complainant has failed to deposit the outstanding dues despite various reminders from the Opposite Parties due to which the unit allotment now stands cancelled.    

          The Opposite Parties have further stated that the Complainant had booked another unit CEDAR 103 in the name of his wife Mrs. Tripta Rani and had deposited Rs.5,42,027/- for the same. The Complainant has already requested that this amount be adjusted against the payment of Rs.9,65,643/- due from him. The balance amount of Rs.4,23,017/- was paid by the Complainant through Cheque dated 15.07.2003 (Annexure R-10).

          Again, the son-in-law of the Complainant had booked Flat No. Walnut 301 against which Rs.9,65,385/- had been deposited. A request was also made for cancellation of this flat and adjustment of the amount towards the flat of the Complainant (Correspondence at Annexure R-12 and R-13). Opposite Parties have also stated that an interest waiver scheme was taken out by the company and was sent to the Complainant vide letter dated 23.01.2009 (Annexure R-15). However, the Complainant chose not to opt for the interest waiver scheme. Eventually, the Complainant was asked to deposit the balance amount due (Annexure R-16 to R-18). When the Complainant did not make any payment, a final reminder dated 01.10.2009 was sent to him for depositing an outstanding amount of Rs.5,97,527/- (Annexure R-19). The Complainant was also told that if the amount was not deposited till 16.10.2009 his booking would be cancelled. Final call notice dated 06.02.2010 is also on record at Annexure R-20. The Complainant has not made the payment. Denying all other contentions of the Complainant, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and learned proxy counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant.  

6.          Before going into the merits of the case, we need to look into the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum for adjudication on the instant dispute. Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:-

“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.- (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the Compensation if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.

          The Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.19,81,593.50/- to the Opposite Parties as also Rs.51,000/- as club fees. He has made a prayer for allotment of the flat worth Rs.23,30,110/- against which he has already deposited Rs.19,81,593.50/- besides Rs.51,000/- as club charges. He has also demanded Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and causing mental agony and harassment, as well as Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation. The Complainant has also made a prayer that in case of failure by the Opposite Parties to allot the property to him, the deposited amount of Rs.19,81,593/- and Rs.51,000/- paid towards club charges be refunded along with interest @24% p.a.

          Clearly, the claim of the Complainant in each mode of calculation whether refund with interest, or value of allotment, including compensation, is well beyond Rs.20,00,000/- and hence beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum as provided in Section 11(1), reproduced above.      

7.          The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in F.A. No.208 of 2012, decided on 08.10.2012 - Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Mona Makin & Anr., has categorically held that “the pecuniary Jurisdiction, was required to be determined, on the basis of the aggregate value of the plot plus (+) compensation, claimed, as per Section 11(1) of the Act.”

8.          In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as the settled position of law, we do not deem it appropriate to adjudicate on the complaint on merits. Accordingly, we only dismiss the complaint on the ground of it being beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. However, the Complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint, on the same cause of action, in a court of competent jurisdiction.   

9.          Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11^th February, 2013.                                                 

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”