Haryana

StateCommission

CC/118/2016

DR.JITENDRA KUMAR AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ARTI BANSAL

08 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

Consumer Complaint No  : 118 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:              11.05.2016

                                                Date of Decision :                08.07.2016

 

 

 

Dr. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal son of late Sh. Ram Kishan Dass, resident of House No.5/505, Amar Colony, Sonepat.

                                      Complainant

Versus

1.      Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Registered Office at 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.      Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, Branch Office at Rai, District Sonepat through its Authorized Signatory.

3.      Sh. Sushil Ansal, Chairman and Whole Time Director, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi Also at: Vishranti, 26, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi-110001.

4.      Sh. Anil Kumar, Managing Director, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

          Also at : G-156, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi -110044.

5.      Pranav Ansal, CEO and Whole Time Director, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

          Also at Vishranti, 26, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi -110001.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Roopak Bansal, Advocate for complainant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          For the limited purpose of adjudicating upon the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission in entertaining the present complaint, it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts.

 

2.      Dr. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal-complainant booked a flat with Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited-opposite parties (for short, ‘builder’) in the project namely ‘The Europa Residency’ Sushant City, Kundli, District Sonepat by depositing Rs.87,750/- in the month of October, 2009. The builder allotted Apartment No.02, Block/Tower No.B, First Floor, Europa Residency, Sushant City, Kundli, Sonepat.  The basic sale price of the flat was Rs.16,81,875/-, Preferential Location Charges Rs.73,125/-, composite charges Rs.3,16,875/- and Rs.1,00,000/- covered car parking. As per the Apartment Allottee(s) Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of signing the agreement, that is, October 05^th, 2009. In all, the complainant deposited Rs.20,62,581.37 but the possession of the flat was not delivered.

3.      By filing the present complaint, complainant sought direction to the builder:-

          (i)      To complete the incomplete work of the project and to obtain occupation certificate from the competent authority in respect of the flat of the complainant in the project known as Europa Residency, Kundli, Sonepat.

          (ii)      To restore back the parks and open area shown to the complainant in the layout plan at the time of booking of the flat.

          (iii)     To handover the possession of the Unit within some short stipulated period or to refund the amount of Rs.20,71,875/- paid by the complainant with 24% interest.

          (iv)    To pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs on account of mental agony and harassment.

          (v)     To pay Rs.10 lacs on account of penalty in lieu of not handing over the possession of Unit for last 6 years.

          (vi)    To pay compensation of Rs.1000/- per day for delay in handing over of the possession till the date of actual handing over of the possession.

          (vii)    To pay interest at the rate of 20% on the amount deposited by the complainant payable from the date of payment to the date of actual handling over of flat/unit.

          (viii)   To pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- for litigation expenses.  

 

4.      The first and foremost question arising for consideration before this Commission is as to whether the complaint in hand is maintainable before this Commission or it was required to be filed before the District Consumer Forum?

5.      Section 17 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of this Commission.  For facilitation, the same is reproduced as under:-

17. “Jurisdiction of the State Commission:-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-

1. to entertain-

1. complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and
2. appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and

(b)     to call for the records and passed appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in excercise on its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2)     A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)     the cause of action , wholly or in part, arises.

 

6.      A plain reading of Section 17 of the Act suggests that there is a fair scheme in the Act with regard to hierarchy of the consumer forums established under the Act. In respect of the goods or services and the compensation, the value of which does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs, the complaint shall lie before the District Forum whereas where the value of such goods or services and the compensation exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore, the complaint lies before the State Commission and where the value of the goods or services and compensation is exceeding rupees one crore, the complaint is maintainable before the National Commission. The legislators were conscious of the fact that the Act deals with either the defect of goods or deficiency in service. So, ordinarily, where the value of goods which are for self consumption and not for resale or commercial purpose, is less than rupees twenty lakhs, the legislators wanted to confer jurisdiction upon the District Forum at the first instance but where the value of such goods or services exceeds such limit, the alternative jurisdictions were conferred.

7.      Whether the complaint is maintainable before the District Consumer Forum or not, the complainant has to demonstrate whether he has filed the complaint before the District Forum complaining of defect in goods or deficiency in service. If the grievance pertains to defect of goods, then the value thereof plus compensation shall govern the jurisdiction but if it is with regard to deficiency in service, the complainant has to assess the deficiency in service availed by him.

8.      In the instant case, the complainant is seeking possession of the flat and complaining of deficiency in service rendered by the builder. The price of the flat is not be taken into consideration because the flat does not fall within the definition of ‘goods’.  Section 2(i) of the Act states that ‘goods’ means goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which defines ‘goods’ is reproduced as under:-

“goods” means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale;

 

9.      In view of above, the irresistible conclusion is for assessing the value of service, the price of flat cannot be counted because the flat is an immoveable property. So far as seeking compensation for harassment, litigation expenses etc is concerned, it is repeated experience of the redressal agencies that the litigants inflate and enhance their claim of compensation to suit the jurisdiction, which they may choose to avail. It is obviously the bounden duty of the redressal agencies themselves to scrutinize the reasonableness of the monetary claim raised by the complainant. It is well settled principle of law that the computation alone does not conclusively govern the pecuniary jurisdiction of the redressal agencies under the Act.

10.    In Sudhakar Vinayak Sapre versus M/s Sanmitra Housing of Bajaj Nagar, II(1992) CPJ 673, Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bombay, held as under:-

“2. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act defines the jurisdiction of District Forum. Under the said provision, it is provided that the valuation of the complaint has to be determined on the basis of the value of the goods or services and the compensation if any claimed (italicised is ours). In other words, it means that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction has to be computed on the basis of the amount claimed. The flat in question is certainly not a goods. The complaint is essentially about the deficiency in the service where the claim is for Rs. 24,000/- only in addition to the possession of flat. For purposes of possession, no valuation is required to be computed as this is not a Civil Court.…”

11.    In view of the above, this Commission holds that the present complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, the same is dismissed being not maintainable. However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek his grievances before the proper forum or civil court, as per law.  He can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – 1995(3) SCC 583.

 

 

 

Announced 08.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK