DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.653 of 2016

                                                  Date of institution:  03.10.2016                                                  Date of decision   :  25.07.2018

Satpal Singh Sandhu son of Dyal Singh Sandhu, resident of House No.1467, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s. Bajwa Developers Limited, through its Managing Director/Director Mr. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar, Greater Mohali, Punjab.

2.     Ms. Sumeet Saini, General Manager, Sales, M/s. Bajwa Developers Limited, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar, Greater Mohali, Punjab.

                                                           ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Amit Mahajan, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri R.P. Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, with intention of owning 2 BHK residential flat in Imperial Apartments project floated by OPs, paid booking amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs on 20.04.2011. Total sale price of the flat having covered area of 900 sq. ft. approximately was Rs.25,00,200/-. Thereafter different amounts on different dates were paid in hope that OPs will deliver possession of the finished flat, but despite that after visiting the spot, it transpired as if OP No.1 has not obtained statutory licenses and clearances from the appropriate authorities, due to which management of OP Company closed the aforesaid project. Repeated efforts for ascertaining the status were made and in all amount of Rs.9,50,000/- had been paid by complainant to OPs. Act of non obtaining of licenses and of closing the project alleged to be unfair trade practice. Even OPs did not use to meet the complainant, as and when he used to visit them for ascertaining status of the apartment. Request for refund even not acceded by OPs and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of Rs.9,50,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of booking namely 20.04.2011 till realisation. It is claimed that complainant has to pay rent @ Rs.8,000/- per month for hiring accommodation and as such rent @ Rs.8,000/- per month for delay on part of OPs in handing over possession of the flat with interest @ 24% per annum even claimed from the date of possession namely 25.05.2015 till realisation. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.3.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply submitted by OPs, it is claimed that complaint is time barred because agreement entered into on 21.06.2011, but the last payment received from complainant on 24.03.2012  and the complaint has been filed on 03.10.2016. Flat in question was meant for Economically Weaker Sections of the society and complainant concealed his identity, due to which he is not a consumer. Condition of raising construction and delivery of possession was subject to payment plan. In case stipulated installments not paid in time, then earnest amount to stand forfeited as per Clause-3 of the agreement. Complainant did not produce any documentary proof in support of his claim of belonging to Economically Weaker Section, despite requirement of Clause-7 of agreement. Complainant falsely claimed about his eligibility for allotment of economically weaker section category flat. Factum of received payments not denied.

3.             Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-4 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director of OPs and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             First and foremost question requiring determination is as to whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Aggregate of amount of reliefs claimed in this case goes beyond pecuniary limit jurisdiction of Rs.20.00 lakhs of this Forum. It is the case of complainant himself put forth through this complaint that total sale price of the flat to be got by him was Rs.25,00,200/-. So the sale price of the goods/property to be purchased by complainant was more than Rs.20.00 lakhs. Complainant claims refund of paid amount of Rs.9.50 lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 20.04.2011 till payment alongwith compensation of amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-. If the interest on amount of Rs.9.50 lakhs @ 24% per annum is calculated, then the same comes to Rs.2,28,000/- per annum. This complaint filed on 03.10.2016 and as such virtually interest for 5 years and 5 months on above said amount of Rs.9,50,000/- is claimed. Interest for period of 5 years at claimed rate of 24% comes to Rs.11,40,000/-. By adding amount of Rs.3.50 lakhs of claimed compensation and litigation expenses, it comes to Rs.14,90,000/-. Refund of Rs.9,50,000/- is claimed and as such aggregate of these amounts comes to Rs.24,40,000/-. If interest for another period of 6 months on amount of Rs.9,50,000/- added to the  above said amount, then the total amount comes to Rs.25,54,000/-. Rent @ Rs.8,000/- per month w.e.f. 25.05.2015 even claimed and as such virtually that rent is claimed for period of one year and four months till filing of complaint. That rent for one year as such will be Rs.96,000/- and for another four months it will be Rs.32,000/-. So total claimed rental value for the period of late delivery of possession comes to Rs.1,28,000/- until the date of filing of complaint. So virtually the aggregate of amounts claimed comes to Rs.26,82,000/-. This amount of Rs.26,82,000/- does not include in it demanded interest @ 24% per annum for the period for which rent has to be paid by complainant on hired accommodation for period from 25.05.2015 to the date of filing of complaint namely 03.10.2016. So certainly aggregate of the claimed reliefs goes beyond amount of Rs.26.00 lakhs.

6.             In case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2016(4) CPR 83 decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it has been specifically held that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Forum, the value of goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the defects in the services to be considered.  However, interest amount also has to be taken into consideration for determination of this pecuniary jurisdiction limit. Virtually crux of ratio of this case is to the effect that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, aggregate of value of goods purchased or the services hired or availed alongwith amount of claimed compensation plus claimed interest amount has to be taken together into consideration. The view taken in this case re-affirmed in case titled as M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others Vs. Lalitha Saini, First Appeal No.1364 of 2017 decided on 21.08.2017 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.  Rather in Para No.9 of this later cited case, it has been specifically held that decision given in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors (ibid) is binding not only on the Fora below, but also on the other benches of Hon’ble National Commission, unless it happens to be a larger bench decision. In view of observations made in this para No.9 of case of M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others (supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that ratio of law laid down in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors (ibid) has to be followed. Even in case of Bishwanath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Anand Gautam Das Gupta, 2016(1) CPJ 17 (Hon’ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi), it has been held that question of pecuniary jurisdiction to be decided on the basis of claim made and not on the basis of relief granted. Same proposition also reiterated in case of Gurbax Singh Bains Vs. M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh and another, 2014(3) CPC 390 (NC). So if the total value of claimed relief including amount of claimed compensation and interest in aggregate goes beyond amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs, then certainly District Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. Same is the case before us because here the amount claimed in aggregate referred above goes beyond limit of Rs.20.00 lakhs. Where aggregate of due amount of reliefs claimed goes beyond Rs.20.00 lakhs, but remains less than Rs.1.00 Crore, then Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission will be having jurisdiction. So complainant, if advised, may approach the Hon’ble State Commission for redressal of his grievance by filing complaint there.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, but with the observation that the complainant will be at liberty to avail remedy before the appropriate Forum/Commission.   Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter filed be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

July 25, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member