Haryana

StateCommission

CC/87/2015

KEDAR B BHATT AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

BPTP LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NEHA SONAWANE

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

         

Complaint No  :       87 of 2015

Date of Institution:   27.05.2015

Date of Decision :    06.01.2017

 

 

 

1.      Kedar B. Bhatt son of Bhushan Datt Bhatt

2.      Gaurav Bhatt son of Kedar B. Bhatt through his Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Kedar B. Bhatt

          Both residing at 101/41, Silver Oaks, DLF Phase 1, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002.

                                      Complainants

 

Versus

 

 

 

1.      M/s BPTP Limited, BPTP Crest, Plot No.15, Udyog Vihar, Phase 4, Gurgaon 122015, Haryana having registered office at M11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110011 through its Managing Director Sh. Kabul Chawla.

2.      M/s BPTP Limited, BPTP Crest, Plot No.15, Udyog Vihar, Phase 4, Gurgaon 122015, Haryana having registered office at M11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110011 through its Director Sh. Sudhanshu Tripathi.

3.      M/s BPTP Limited, BPTP Crest, Plot No.15, Udyog Vihar, Phase 4, Gurgaon 122015, Haryana having registered office at M11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110011 through its General Manager.

4.      M/s Countrywide Promoters Private Limited, M11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110011 through its Managing Director.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member                                                                                                                                          

Argued by:          Shri  Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for complainants.

Shri Talwinder Singh, proxy counsel for Shri Hemant Saini, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)  

 

          Kedar B. Bhatt and his son Gaurav Bhatt-complainants have filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that they booked a flat in project Terra in Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana with M/s BPTP Limited-opposite parties No.1 to 3 (for short, ‘builder’) on August 05^th, 2012 by paying an amount of Rs.7 lacs by cheque (photocopy Exhibit C-2).  The builder issued allotment letter (Exhibit C-3) whereby Flat No.T23-2203 was allotted to the complainants in the said project.  Buyers Agreement (Exhibit C-4) was executed on December 29^th, 2012.  The basic sale price of the flat was Rs.1,04,89,500/-. The complainants paid Rs.45,70,372.20 vide receipts Exhibit C-5 (Nine in number). On October 31^st, 2013, the complainants received an email from the builder that the earlier flat allotted to them, that is, T23-2203 was to be reallotted and offer was made of Flat No.T23-1504 or T20-202 of which they refused vide sending the email dated November 06^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-7).  Vide email dated November 19^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-8) builder refused to allot the flat which was allotted to the complainants vide allotment letter (Exhibit C-3).  On November 20^th, 2013 vide email (Exhibit C-9) the complainants asked the builder to cancel the allotment and to pay the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.  In response thereto, the builder sent the email (Exhibit C-10) to the complainants to have another flat bearing No.T23-1904 but they refused to accept the offer.  Again the complainants asked for the refund vide email dated December 06^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-11). Inspite of the request made by the complainants to cancel the flat and to refund the amount, the builder realloted another flat bearing No.T23-2004 vide letter dated December 10^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-11/A).  The complainants again requested the builder to refund the amount vide Exhibit C-12.  Vide (Exhibit C-13) the builder had shown it’s inability to reallot the previous unit, that is, the original flat allotted to the complainants.  The complainants again asked for the refund of the amount by sending letter (Exhibit C-14).  Notice (Exhibit C-15) was sent to the builder.  On the asking of the builder, the complainants sent the surrender form (Exhibit C-16).  Vide letter (Exhibit C-17) dated November 03^rd, 2014, it was stated by the builder that the process to issue the cheque would take time and they would inform the complainants whenever the same would be ready.  It was stated that the cheque would be issued approximately in the month of February 2015.  Since, the amount was not paid to the complainants, they again wrote a letter (Exhibit C-18) on November 04^th, 2014 to the builder.  Inspite of the repeated requests, the builder did not return the money, legal notice dated March 31^st, 2015 (Exhibit C-19) was sent to the builder.

2.      The builder, in its written version, denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   

3.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record over the file, the question arises for consideration is as to whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not?

4.      In First Appeal No.1194 of 2016, Santosh Arya Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited decided on October 07^th, 2016 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the short ground that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the total compensation claimed by the complainant works out to Rs.6,50,875/- and it being less than Rs.20,00,000/-, only the District Forum had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The findings of the Commission were not accepted by the Hon’ble National Commission by holding in paragraph No.4 of the order as under:-

          “4.    That being the legal position, in the present case, the value of the flat in question by itself being Rs.1,85,01,285/-, and even ignoring the amount of compensation, neither the State Commission nor the District Forum, as held by the State Commission, will have the jurisdiction and this Commission alone will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint filed by the Appellant.”

5.      In Parikshit Parashar Vs. M/s Universal Buildwell Private Limited and Others, decided on October 07^th, 2016 presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President, National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi, following issues dated August 11^th, 2016 interalia were referred by a Single Member Bench of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission to the Larger Bench:-

(i)      In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, or the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.

(ii)      Whether the interest claimed on such value by way of compensation or otherwise, is to be taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular consumer forum. 

(iii)     Whether “the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed” is to be taken as per the original value of such goods, or service at the time of purchase of such goods or hiring or availing of such service, or such value is to be taken at the time of filing the claim, in question.

(iv)    XXXXXX

(v)               XXXXXX

(vi)     XXXXXX 

          (vii)    XXXXXX.

6.      While answering Issue No.(i) referred to above, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held that if the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, the National Consumer Commission alone would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  By referring the instance that a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before the National Consumer Commission because value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.

7.      Under Issue No.(ii), it was held that the amount of interest which can be paid as compensation, must necessarily be taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. 

8.      With regard to Issue No.(iii), it was held that if the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer is taken as the value of the goods or services in that case, the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.

9.      From the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements in both the cases Santosh Arya and Parikshit Parashar (supra), this Commission holds that the present complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission because value of the flat in question is itself Rs.1,04,89,500/-.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  It is accordingly dismissed. 

 

 

Announced 06.01.2017

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK