Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/687/2017

Balvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Choudhary, Adv.

30 Oct 2017

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	687 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	11.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	30.10.2017

 

Balvinder Singh son of Sh.Harcharan Singh, resident of House No.67, Sector  51-A, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

Chandigarh Housing Board, 8 Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Secretary.

              .... Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:         MR. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Sh.Shekhar Choudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking directions to the opposite party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/-, as it delayed in delivering possession of  two bedroom flat bearing no.67 (in short the unit), purchased by him, in its project, under Self Financing Scheme, 2010, in Sector 51-A, Chandigarh. It is case of the complainant that he was in dire need of a house, as a result whereof, after completing all necessary formalities, he applied for the same, in the project of the opposite party. Ultimately, he participated in the process of bid of the unit, in question, reserve price whereof was fixed at Rs.50,65,000/-. There were total 16 flats, under the said scheme. The complainant gave a bid of Rs.89,48,900/- for the unit, in question, which was accepted by the opposite party, vide acceptance cum demand letter dated 25.04.2012 Annexure C-3. It was further stated that, thereafter, as per demands raised by the opposite party, the complainant kept on making payment towards price of the said unit. It was further stated that, when after making payment of substantial amount towards price of the said unit, the complainant saw that the opposite party is not serious in completing the project, he was constrained to withhold part payments, for some time. It was further stated that to the utter shock of the complainant, for that short default in making payment, the opposite party charged heavy rate of interest thereon.  In para no.10 of the complaint, it has been stated that the opposite party was required to complete construction of the said unit and hand over possession thereof by 2014, however, despite making payment of Rs.1,03,16,384/-, which included amount of sale consideration, interest on a/c of installments, penalty on delayed payment, service tax etc.,  it (opposite party) failed to do so and, ultimately, vide allotment letter Annexure C-12, possession was delivered after a delay of one year i.e. only on 01.01.2015, instead of 01.01.2014. It was further stated that, under above circumstances, the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant, by making payment of compensation, referred to above, besides litigation expenses.   

2.         The complainant led evidence in support of his case.
3.         We have heard Counsel for the complainant, at the preliminary stage and have gone through the evidence and record of the complaint, very carefully.
4.         The moot question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission is vested with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint or not. It may be stated here that it is an admitted case that against reserve price of the unit, in question, which was fixed at Rs.50,65,000/-, bid of the complainant was accepted @Rs.89,48,900/- vide acceptance cum demand letter dated 25.04.2012 Annexure C-3. Perusal of para no.3 of Annexure C-3 reveals that the complainant opted for installment payment plan i.e. “Sub Scheme-B (Assured Allotment Scheme), as mentioned in Para-IV of the brochure Annexure C-2. Vide Clause 3 of the letter Annexure C-3, the complainant was given option either to make the entire payment demanded within 30 days, as a result whereof, no interest was to be charged or in the alternative, he can make the payment in installments, alongwith interest @12% p.a. in 18 months. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant opted to make payment towards price of the said unit, in installments, alongwith interest, referred to above.  In this manner, the complainant was required to pay the amount of interest @12% p.a. (Rs.8,21,040/-), over and above the amount of Rs.89,48,900/-, in lieu of payment plan opted by him, towards price of the said unit. Apart from that, the complainant was also required to pay Rs.2,76,521/- towards service tax and Rs.1,79,995/- towards reduction of solar water heating system and modular pullout trolley/cabinets and also reversal of service tax.  In this manner, total amount to be paid towards the said unit, comes to Rs.1,02,26,456/-.  Not only as above, it is also an admitted case that on account of delay in making payment towards price of said unit, an amount of Rs.2,69,923/- was levied towards delayed payment interest, which has admittedly been paid by the complainant without any protest. It is very pertinent to mention here that, even if the amount of interest paid by the complainant towards delay in making payment is not taken into consideration, then also the entire sale consideration which becomes payable by the complainant to opposite party towards price of the said unit comes to Rs.1,02,26,456/-. Furthermore, the complainant has also sought compensation for mental agony, physical harassment etc. to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/-. If the said amount of compensation is added to the entire sale consideration, referred to above, it comes to Rs.1,07,26,456/-.  As per Section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, this Commission is bound to entertain the complaints, where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any claimed, exceeds Rs.20 lacs but does not exceed rupee one crore. Under these circumstances, since the amount of entire sale consideration, referred to above, alongwith compensation claimed, exceeds Rs.1 crore i.e. Rs.1,07,26,456/-, as such, this Commission is not vested with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint.
5.         Even otherwise, if it is seen from other angle, that, in case, instead of seeking compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the unit, had the complainant sought refund of the amount paid alongwith compensation which comes to more than Rs.1 crore, in that case also, he was required to approach the Hon’ble National Commission, for the same. It is, therefore, held that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
6.         For the reasons recorded above, it is held that this Commission, has no pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the instant complaint, and, as such the same is not maintainable before it. The complaint, in original, is ordered to be returned to the complainant, alongwith the documents, attached therewith, after retaining spare copy of the same, for presentation, before the appropriate Fora, having pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same.
7.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
8.         The spare copy of the complaint case, and the documents attached therewith, be consigned to Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced.

30.10.2017

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 Rg.