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

                                      Consumer Complaint No.465 of 2016

                                                Date of institution:  05.08.2016                                         Date of decision   :  06.12.2017

Ms Usha Sharma wife of Rakesh Kumar, resident of House No.1449, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh now resident of House No.8465-A, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave, Mohali.

 ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Bajwa Developers Limited, Desu Majra, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali through its Managing Director Shri Jarnail Singh Bajwa.

                                                           ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri Ravi K. Mattoo cl. for the complainant.

Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the OP.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Ms. Usha Sharma has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The OP carries on the business of building, developing housing project and further sale of plots falling in Sectors 123 to 125, Greater Mohali, also known as Sunny Enclave, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali. The OP advertise about its projects and plots through various newspapers in order to allure common man to invest into its project/plots. In the month of January, 2012 the OP himself alongwith his officials convinced the complainant to purchase a plot in his project near village Jandpur to be named as New Sunny Enclave (as told by the OP). OP convinced the complainant to enter into an agreement to sell dated 24.01.2012 qua a plot falling in list No.77T measuring 200 sq. yards village E25, Sector 124 Jandpur, Tehsil Kharar for a total sale consideration of Rs.31,20,000/-. The OP assured complainant to pay total amount in five installments. At the time of agreement the complainant paid Rs.9,36,000/- to the  and remaining five installments were to be paid. OP orally informed the complainant that after payment of earnest money, she is supposed to pay the first installment after three months from the date OP gets the CLU (Change of Land Use) clearance and lay out plan etc. and second installment after another three months when the plot is ready for possession.  OP assured complainant that they will inform her to pay the installment when CLU clearance and lay out plan is complete.  Though OP assured complainant that it will get the CLU clearance and lay out plan before the due date of first installment i.e. 20.04.2012 yet it failed to stick to its own words.  The complainant had raised the loan from HDFC Bank for making balance payment. Accordingly the loan was sanctioned and the bank disbursed cheque of Rs.7,00,000/- to the OP on 16.07.2014 and the OP received payment on 29.07.2014. Thereafter the OP extended the date in the agreement to 30.09.2014. Even after expiry of last extended date, the OP failed to provide her the plot with all clearances and formalities required enabling him to raise the construction. OP has withheld her hard earned money of Rs.16,36,000/-  which was received by OP. Hence this complaint for giving direction to the OP to refund her Rs.16,36,000/- alongwith interest @  6% per annum; to pay her Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             The OP in the written statement has taken the preliminary objections that transaction between the complainant and OP is purely sale agreement of plot for total sale consideration of Rs. Rs.31,20,000/-; complainant booked the plot with the OP with the complete knowledge that the approvals are yet to be taken and the OP with extra efforts got the approval but the complainant failed to deposit the installment and the complainant requested for extension of time for payment  and on the request of the complainant agreement date was extended number of times till 30.09.2014 and the complainant has filed the present complaint to cover up the non payment and forfeiture of amount. The complainant has approached this Forum with unclean hands; complainant is in default of payment of installments;  she is stopped by her own act and conduct; no cause of action arose to the complainant; there is no consumer/service provider relationship between the complainant and the OP; complainant is well aware that approvals of the project are under process and it will take time for getting the approval and possession of the plot. The OP got all the approvals and got all the licenses to develop colony from GMADA but the complainant want to sell the plot at premium found that she is not fetching good price in the open market filed the present complaint for getting refund from the OP. The complaint is wholly misconceived; groundless and unsustainable in law; baseless; frivolous; vexatious; barred by limitation. On merits also the OP denied all the allegations made against them and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW-1/1 and copy of agreement to sell Ex.C-1.  In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jarnail Singh Bajwa, its MD Ex.OP-1/1.

5.             At the very outset learned counsel for the OPs has argued that this Forum has not the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint.  He has argued that the value of the flat is Rs.31,20,000/- and that the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2017(1) CPJ 1 has observed that it is the value of the goods or services, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction. Learned counsel has further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab in case titled as Ansal’s Woodbury Apartments Residents Welfare Association Vs. Ansals Housing & Construction Ltd. & another in First Appeal No.931 of 2016 decided on 16.05.2017 wherein the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra)  has been relied upon for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings and evidence of the parties. We are in agreement with the contentions of learned counsel for the OPs and find that the complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as the value of the property is mentioned as Rs.31,20,000/- in agreement to sell Ex.C-1. Thus, in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

                Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby ordered to be returned to the complainant alongwith all the requisite documents placed on record. Further complainant is also granted liberty to approach the appropriate court of law/State Commission/National Commission for redressal of their grievances.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 06.12.2017    

                                           (A.P.S.Rajput)                 

President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member