Delhi

East Delhi

CC/717/2013

ANUPAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

AURA INFRA - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.717/ 2013 :

 

In the matter of:

1. Sh.Anupam Kumar

      S/o. Sh. Mani Bushan Prasad Sinha

2. Smt. Minal Krishna

W/o. Sh.Anupam Kumar

 

Both R/o. Quarter No.AP – 16, Staff Colony,

     Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering and Technology,

     Daburali Road, Bhatinda, Punjab

Complainant

                          Vs

M/s. Aura Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Having its Registered Office at:

78 – B, Sector D -2, Group II, DDA Flats,

Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar Ph – III,

Delhi – 110 096

 

Also At:

B-111, Sector-5,

Gautam Budh Nagar,

Noida – 201 301

Respondent

 

Date of Admission : 10/09/2013

                                                                                    Date of Order          : 19/06/2015

 

ORDER

 

Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Member :

 

The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that lured by the advertisements of the respondents in newspapers, and through its website and representatives offered to the public at large residential flats in their Project Aura Chimera at Noor Nagar (Raj Nagar Extension) on NH-58, Ghaziabad (UP).  The complainants booked a flat of bearing Unit No.D-602 of 1125 sq.ft. on the sixth floor of Block D in the said Project at NH -24, Ghaziabad for a consideration of Rs.19,54,325/-.  Allotment Letter was issued to the complainants and an Agreement was entered into with the respondent on 14/06/2007.  In all the complainants have paid Rs.11,31,765/- to the respondent towards the cost of the flat.  As per the terms & conditions of the agreement the respondent was to handover the possession of the flat to the complainants by April, 2009 which was later on revised to June, 2010 when the respondent issued a non-transferrable letter of entitlement for claiming the possession period extension charges @ Rs.5 per sq.ft. per month on the super area of the flat for the delayed period and extended the date of delivery of possession to June, 2010.  The respondent has failed to meet the deadline for the delivery of possession of the said flat to the complainants.  Repeated requests through e-mails, letters, other communications and a legal notice dated 18/03/2013 for the delivery of possession of the allotted flat to the complainants were of no consequence.  The complainants have prayed for directions to the respondent to handover the possession of the aforesaid flat to them and pay to them the agreed possession period extension charges together with compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.  They have also prayed for interest @ 20% p.a. on the amount paid by them towards the cost of the allotted flat and the amount of penalty accrued till the date of possession and have also prayed for the cost of this litigation.

Respondent appeared in response to the notice issued to it and filed its written version wherein it has raised the pleas of territorial jurisdiction and limitation.  It is alleged that the complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.  The respondent is not liable to pay any damages, interest or cost to the complainants as the structure of the project in question is ready and the respondent will deliver the possession of the flat within one year approximately and respondent is ready to give a flat to the complainants in their other project and adjust the amount already paid by the complainants towards its consideration.  It is further contended that the complainants are defaulters themselves as they have failed to pay the balance consideration in respect of the booked flat.  It is contended that the complainants had settled the issue with the respondent and paid a sum of Rs.1,66,000/- vide Cheque No.560888 dated 11/02/2014 Canara Bank Romana, Jodhpur as part payment out of the total outstanding amount of Rs.3,09,056/- in compliance to the demand letter dated 21/01/2014. Rest of the allegations have been denied.

Rejoinder to the written statement of the respondent filed by the complainant to rebut the contentions raised by the respondent. Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by both the complainants and the respondent in support of their respective cases. 

            Heard and perused the record.

Before going into the merits of this case, the preliminary issue with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present complaint needs to be decided.  The provision with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of a District Forum is contained in Section 11(1) of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The mandate of Section 11 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that it is the duty of the Court not to entertain any suit irrespective of the fact that lack of pecuniary jurisdiction has not been set up as a defence. If a suit cannot be entertained by a Court for want of pecuniary jurisdiction it has no choice but to dismiss the same even if the defendant has not challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.  If we look to Section 11 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the language is very simple and clear. Jurisdiction upto Rs.20 Lakhs consists of the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed. It does not include the interest part. In the present case, the cost of the flat in question is Rs.19,54,325/- as is evident from the Flat Buyer Agreement. Alongwith the possession of the said flat, the complainant has also prayed for direction to the respondent to pay Possession Period Extension Charges and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. Taking all of these together, the amount of relief claimed is well beyond Rs.20 Lakhs, the limit of Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the District Forum as provided for in the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From the above, an inference is drawn that this Forum has no pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

Taking into consideration the detailed discussion and observations made supra, the present complaint is returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper court or Forum having jurisdiction to entertain it.

Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.

 

(Subhash Gupta)                                (Poonam Malhotra)                                       (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                          Member                                                            President