Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/79/2015

Manju Bajaj W/o Sandeep Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Rajouria

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                                             Complaint No.79 of 2015.

                                                                             Date of institution: 09.03.2015.

                                                                             Date of decision: 26.09.2017.

 

Manju Bajaj wife of Shri Sandeep Bajaj, age 41 years, resident of H.No.1471, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
2. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, having its S.C.O.No.136, Sector-17, Commercial Belt, HUDA, Jagadhri, through its Manager. 

 

          ….Respondents.

BEFORE         SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.      

 

Present:            Sh. Neeraj Rajoria, Advocate, for complainant.   

                         Sh. Hitesh Gambhir, Advocate for the OPs.

                       

         

ORDER (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                        The complainant Manju Bajaj has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                    Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that a plot No.B-1603 was originally allotted to Mr. Balwant Singh son of Sh. Soran Lal, resident of V.P.O. Chamrori, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  It is alleged that the Ops had displayed various banners as-well-as hoardings in District Yamuna Nagar making advertisement of their proposed development of site plan known as Sushant City.  It is further alleged that the Ops had also made representation that the possession of the plot to the purchasers shall be delivered within 2 years from its allotment.  It is further alleged that believing upon the assertion of the Ops, the complainant purchased the plot No.B-1603 having area of 502.32 Sq.Yards/ 420 SMT.  It is further alleged that the Ops have stopped the further development in the colony developed by them.  It is further alleged that the complainant has repeatedly requested the Ops to develop the colony and also to deliver the actual and physical possession to the complainant but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint wherein it has been prayed that the Ops be directed to hand over the actual physical possession of the plot in question and if they failed to do so, then to return all the amount paid by him alongwith interest.  They may be further directed to develop the said site etc. as per the assurance given by them and also to pay compensation for deficient services and causing mental loss and agony to the complainant.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that this Forum has got no pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint because the value of the plot is much more than the pecuniary limit of this forum and Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, it is stated that the Ops have never made any representation that the possession of the plot to the purchasers shall be delivered within 2 years from its allotment.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                    The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit, Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10 and closed evidence on 07.12.2015.

5.                    On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Parveen Sheoran, Authorized Representative, as Annexure-RW/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8 and closed evidence on 31.01.2017.   

6.                    We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.                       Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the Ops had made representation that the possession of the plot to the purchasers shall be delivered within 2 years from its allotment and believing upon the assertion of the Ops, the complainant purchased the plot No.B-1603 having area of 502.32 Sq.Yards/420 SMT.  It is further argued that the Ops have stopped the further development in the colony developed by them.  It is further argued that the complainant has repeatedly requested the Ops to develop the colony and also to deliver the actual and physical possession to the complainant but the Ops did not do so and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                    On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that this forum has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint because the value of the plot is much more than of Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. the pecuniary limit of this forum and Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and prayed that the case may kindly be decided only on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction without deciding the same on merits.   

9.                    After hearing the arguments of ld. Counsel for both the parties and going through the record, without going into merits of the case, it emerges that the foremost question which arises before us for consideration is whether this forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint or not?

                        We have gone through the Section 11(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reproduced as under:-

“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).”

                        We have perused the customer ledger of complainant bearing plot No.0037-B-1603 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the basic area price of plot is to the tune of Rs.25,36,716/- and infrastructure development charges Rs.200928/- and as such, the total cost of the plot in question was Rs.27,37,644/- as per statement dt. 04.09.2017 which is out of Rs.20,00,000/- as mentioned under Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The same view has been held in case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in CC No.97 of 2016 decided by National Commission.

“It is the value of goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.”

                        The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Sanjay Saini Vs. M/s. Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. bearing first appeal No.472 of 2016 decided on 01.02.2017 has observed that the value of the flat was to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

                        Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in several judgments, the value of the property or goods or services as the case may be, is to be considered for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.  In the present case, the complainant has failed to produce any evidence or document to prove that the value of the plot in question is less than twenty lakhs.

10.                  Resultantly, in view of facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the considered view that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Commission to redress his grievances, if so advised.  Exemption of time spent before this forum is granted in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as “Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) III, SCC page 583”.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.  

Announced in open court.                     

Dated: 26.09.2017.  

                                                                        (SATPAL)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                      (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                        MEMBER