BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.345 of 2015

Date of Instt. 17.08.2015

Date of Decision :20.08.2015

Narinder Pal Singh Cheema son of Gian Singh R/o H.No.50, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar (Punjab).

..........Complainant Versus

1. Curo India Pvt Ltd, K-28, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016 through its Managing Director.

2. Pawan Garg, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M/s Curo India Pvt Ltd, K-28, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016.

3. Abhay Garg, Director M/s Curo India Pvt Ltd, K-28, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016.

4. Abhinav Garg, Director M/s Curo India Pvt Ltd, K-28, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Ashish Goyal Adv., counsel for complainant.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that opposite party through vide publication in newspaper and through their executive sales, gave massive advertisement to attract and invite customers for booking for purchase of commercial sites/units and in their Curo High Street, a commercial building at 66 Feet Road, Village Lohar Nangal, Near Urban Estate-II, Jalandhar. The opposite parties further gave allurement that site/unit so booked shall give good and appreciable returns to the customers immediately on completion of the buildings and to give its possession by completing the project within stipulated time period of 24 months. Being allured, the complainant booked a unit/commercial site in the above said building of the opposite parties vide booking application dated 8.6.2011 and the opposite parties have received a sum of Rs.17,34,000/- from the complainant vide receipts. Although the complainant had been obeying and adhering to the payment schedule towards the total fixed price but the opposite parties have not fulfilled their part of contract to even start the building project by that time in order to complete the building and handover its possession within the stipulated period of 24 months from the date of booking. However, opposite parties did not adhere and fulfill the terms and conditions of allotment to start and complete the building in order to handover its possession on time to the complainant as per commitment. Since the opposite parties were apprised regularly about the non-fulfillment of the terms of the contract to complete the building at the site, the opposite parties did not bother to carry on the construction work to complete the said building and to handover the possession to the complainant despite receiving a huge sum from the complainant. Rather the opposite parties have misappropriated the said amount by converting the same to their some other use of their own because there was not even sign of start of construction work at the time. Although the opposite parties did not carry on the construction of project yet demanded the balance price with interest and penalties with a further threat of cancellation of the booking of unit. Since there was no likelihood of completion of the project/building on time, as such the complainant became little hesitant in blocking further huge money so that the same may also not be misappropriated as earlier done or being cheated by the opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to handover and deliver the possession of the allotted unit to the complainant immediately by receiving the balance amount of allotment/sale consideration. He has further claimed refund of payment of Rs.17,34,000/- alongwith interest 24% per annum and further Rs.1 Lac as compensation. He has also claimed litigation expenses.

2. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.

3. The first relief claimed by the complainant is for directing the opposite parties to handover and deliver the possession of the allotted unit to the complainant immediately by receiving the balance amount of allotment/sale consideration. The complainant has not mentioned the amount of sale consideration of the site in question in the complaint. However, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant admitted at bar that the value of the site in question is more than Rs.20 Lacs. This fact further find corroboration from the facts pleaded by the complainant in para 5 of the complaint, wherein he has pleaded that since there was no likelihood of completion of the project/building on time, as such the complainant became little hesitant in blocking further huge money so that the same may also not be misappropriated as earlier done or being cheated by the opposite parties. The complainant has already paid Rs.17,34,000/- to the opposite parties and is claiming relief of possession on payment of balance amount of allotment/sale consideration. So this fact also clearly prove that the value of the site in question is more than Rs.20 Lacs. However, this fact was admitted by learned counsel for the complainant at the time of arguments. Where relief of possession of the property is claimed then total value of the properly is to be taken to determine pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum. Since in the present case, the price of the site in question is more than Rs.20 Lacs, as such this forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Consequently, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant after making necessary endorsement on it for presentation before Hon'ble State Commission. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

20.08.2015 Member Member President