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

Consumer Complaint No.561 of 2016

                                             Date of institution:  08.09.2016

                                             Date of decision   :  28.03.2018

Baljit Singh aged  52 years son of Gurcharan Singh, resident of House No.2091, Sector 71, Mohali, Tehsil and District Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Chairman, Sherwood Officers Society (Regd.), Sherwood Estate, Opp. New Cantt. Wagha Bye Pass, Amritsar.

2.     R.K.M. City through its Manager, Site Office, Landran, Tehsil and District Mohali.

……..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 Iqbal Singh, counsel for the complainants.

                OP No.1 Ex-parte.

                Shri S.K. Garg, counsel for OP No.2.

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

Order

               Complainant was allotted plot measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 08.08.2011 and thereafter he deposited total sum of Rs.13,81,000/- on different dates. However, plot number has not been allotted despite that. Complainant approached the site office of OP No.1 for providing serial number of the allotted plot, but on enquiry he got knowledge as if no progress for development of residential society has been achieved at all. As per allotment letter, possession was to be handed over to allottee within a period of 1-1/2 years from the date of booking, but even after passage of four years, nothing has been done. Rather OP No.1 society has not completed the formalities for obtaining requisite sanctions for carving out the residential colony from PUDA. The amount paid by complainant to OP No.1 has been illegally retained and now the project in question has been sold to OP No.2 by OP No.1. Even OP No.2 after purchase of the project from OP No.1 has not done any development on the spot. Refund of the paid amount of Rs.13,81,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till actual realisation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- claimed. Prayer made for directing OPs either to deliver the possession of the allotted plot to complainant immediately or to return the amount of Rs.13,81,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till actual realisation. Litigation costs of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.

2.             OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.01.2017, but OP No.2 despite appearance through counsel did not file written statement within stipulated period of 45 days and as such right to file reply of OP No.2 was struck of vide order dated 09.08.2017.

3.             Complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and thereafter closed evidence.  Later on application was filed for seeking permission by OP No.2 to join the proceedings and that permission at arguments stage was granted to counsel for OP No.2 vide orders dated 28.02.2018.

4.             Arguments of counsel for complainant as well as of OP No.2 were heard and record gone through.

5.             Copy of allotment letter Ex.C-1 is produced on record for establishing that construction of the house will be completed within period of two years from the date of taking over of possession of plot, but said construction work is not carried on the spot and as such it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that direction needs be issued to OPs to complete the construction and handover the possession of the allotted plot to complainant. Area of the plot allotted to complainant is 200 sq. yards as per allotment letter Ex.C-1 itself. Complainant even sent letter Ex.C-2 for calling upon OP No.1 to either develop the plot or refund paid price with interest @ 18% per annum. Similar letter Ex.C-3 also was sent. Rate of plot of 200 sq. yards to be allotted to complainant was Rs.13,800/- per sq. yards is a fact borne from perusal of receipts Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 produced on record by complainant himself. So from the contents of Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 itself, it is made out that plot to be allotted to complainant was having worth of Rs.27,60,000/-. Complainant in the first instance is seeking direction to OPs to deliver the possession of allotted plot immediately. As the worth of the plot is more than Rs.20.00 lakhs because it is Rs.27,60,000/- and as such in view of ratio of case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. bearing Consumer Case No.97 of 2016 decided on 07.10.2016 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it has to be held that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction because in the reported case it has been held that it is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. That value of the plot in this case is Rs.27,60,000/-, but this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaints with value upto Rs.20 lakhs. So this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction, due to which the complaint deserves to be returned to complainant for presentation before the appropriate Forum/Commission and this order passed accordingly.

6.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint ordered to be returned to the complainant for presentation before appropriate Forum/Commission.  Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

March 28, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                                    (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                                      Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member