Haryana

StateCommission

CC/396/2017

SURENDRA PAL GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

TARUN GUPTA

30 Oct 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

         

Complaint No  :       396 of 2017

Date of Institution:   23.06.2017

Date of Decision :    30.10.2017

 

 

 

1.      Surendra Pal Gupta son of Sh. Rattan Lal Gupta

2.      Madhu Gupta wife of Sh. Surendra Pal Gupta

          Both residents of Nal/Comet House Plot No.4, Balogun Bisi, Omidiora Road, Apapa Gra Logos, Nigeria through their power of attorney Sh. Deepak Wadhawan.

                                      Complainants

 

Versus

 

 

 

DLF Home Developers Limited (formerly known as DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Private Limited) Head Office at DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi through its authorized representative.

                                      Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate for complainants.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)  

 

          Surendra Pal Gupta and his wife-complainants have filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that they booked a residential plot in project ‘Alameda’, Sector 73, Gurgaon with DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Private Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘builder’) on December 07^th, 2010 by paying an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-.  The sale price of the plot was Rs.3,71,35,800/-. The complainants applied for loan with AXIS Bank under ‘Subvention Scheme’ but their application was rejected by the bank.  The complainants requested the builder to refund their booking amount of Rs.40,00,000/- but the builder assured the complainants that they would waive off the interest on the delayed payment and arranged India Bulls Finance Company to provide financial assistance to the complainants.  Plot Buyers Agreement was executed between the parties on May 27^th, 2011.  As per clause 11(a) of the agreement, offer of possession of the plot was to be given to the complainants within eighteen months from the date of execution of the agreement, that is, on or before November 27^th, 2012.  The builder instead of waiving off of the interest on the delayed payment, raised a demand of Rs.8,24,660.09.  The builder offered possession of the plot on December 17^th, 2012.  The complainants alleged that they are entitled to Rs.64,73,689/- and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively on account of delay in handing over the possession of the plot in terms of the agreement. 

2.      After hearing learned counsel for the complainants 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?

3.      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.”

4.      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.

5.      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.

6.      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. 

7.      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.

8.      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 plot in question is itself Rs.3,71,35,800/-.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  It is accordingly dismissed. 

 

 

Announced 30.10.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK