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

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

Sandeep Saluja son of Late Sikander Lal Saluja, resident of House No. 1110, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant

Vs

[1]     Ansal Housing and Construction Limited, Registered Office 15 UGF, Inderperkash, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

[2]     Lalit Kumar Arora, General Manager, Ansal Housing and Construction Limited, SCO No. 817, NAC, Shivalik Enclave, Manimajra, Chandigarh – 160101.

[3]     Shalabh Makkar, Assistant General Manager (Marketing), Ansal Housing and Construction Limited, SCO No. 817, NAC, Shivalik Enclave, Manimajra, Chandigarh – 160101.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                  PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                    MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:      Shri Balkar Singh, Counsel for Complainant.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the Complainant seeking directions for the Opposite Parties to allot a flat at the original booking price.

                   As per the Complainant, he had applied to the Opposite Parties for a two bed room flat measuring 1221 sq. ft. for which he has paid Rs.18,90,560/- upto 1.6.2012. The possession of the flat was due to be given to the Complainant in the year 2009, but the flat has not yet been delivered. To add to the misery of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are now demanding additional amounts towards penal compound interest @21% per annum, club fees and other misc. charges which had not been disclosed at the time of booking of the said flat. As per the Complainant, the Opposite Parties have demanded Rs.4,23,539.93/- against these charges on 1.6.2012.

                   Despite representations by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are refusing to entertain him or allot the flat unless he makes payment of the above charges.  The Complainant has thus filed the present complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to allot the flat at the original booking price of Rs.24,35,894/-, besides payment of compensation, interest and cost of litigation. 

2.                Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have perused the record.

4.                The grievance of the Complainant seems genuine and needs redressal by the Opposite Parties. Unfortunately, the main issue with regard to jurisdiction of this forum deserves to be dealt with at the very outset. 

5.                Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum, reads as under: -

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum – (1) subject to the 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.”

As the value of the flat in question (Rs.24,35,894/-), along with the compensation, costs & interest claimed by the Complainant, has exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as per Sec.11(1), referred to above; we express our inability to adjudicate on the matter.

6.                Hence, without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss the present complaint in limine on this point alone. However, the Complainant will be at liberty to file a fresh complaint, on the same cause of action, in a court of competent jurisdiction.   

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

Announced

11^th July,  2012.                                                                            

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER