Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/361/2016

Shri Tajinder Paul Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

NP Sharma & Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	361 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	18.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	03.10.2016

 

Sh. Tajinder Paul Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Gurjit Singh, resident of House No.3069, First Floor, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. DLF India Limited (DLF Universal Limited), through its Managing Director, Registered Office, DLF Shopping Mall, 3^rd Floor, Arjun Marg, DLF City, Phase-1, Gurgaon-122022, Haryana.
2. DLF India Limited (DLF Universal Limited), through its Branch Head, Local Office, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-1600019.

              .... Opposite Parties

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

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:   Sh.Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.                    Ms.Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for the opposite parties. 

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant moved an application dated 28.03.2011, for purchase of a plot, measuring 292.64 square meters, from the opposite parties, for which he deposited an amount of Rs.12 lacs, towards booking amount. On 31.03.2011, he was allotted plot no.HPE-RI-A709, in the project of the opposite parties. Thereafter, payments were made from time to time and by 30.06.2011, an amount of Rs.89,74,498/-, towards price of the plot was paid. On demand, further payments were made and upto 14.12.2015, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,14,08,386/- in the following manner:-

        (As per table shown at page 4 of the complaint)

S.No.	Date	Amount	Head/(s)
	11.03.2011	12,00,000/-	Application Money Deposit
	22.06.2011	35,74,498/-	Towards BSP/EDC/PLC
	24.06.2011	10,00,000/-	Towards BSP
	30.06.2011	32,00,000/-	Towards BSP
	21.10.2013	44,440/-	Towards  Delayed Interest/Others
	06.11.2013	1,86,665/-	Towards  Delayed Interest/EDC/PLC
	08.06.2015	9,05,827/-	Towards Conveyance Deed
	03.09.2015	91,409/-	Additional for Conveyance Deed
	14.12.2015	6,00,000/-	Towards BSP/Club/ Maintenance Security/PLC
	14.12.2015	6,05,547/-	Towards BSP/Advance CAM/Club Security/Meter Charges/Sub-Station Charges/PSEB Charges/Others.
	Total Paid	1,14,08,386/-	1,02,68,812.80/- after deducting the charges paid for Delayed Interest/Conveyance Deed Fee.

 

 

2.         It is case of the complainant that when the plot was booked, it was assured to him that its possession will be delivered within two years, from the date of execution of the Agreement. However, Agreement was got signed only on 22.11.2014. Again, it was stipulated that possession will be handed over within 24 months from the date of signing of that Agreement. It was further provided in the said Agreement that on expiry of the said period of 24 months, compensation amount will be paid, for the period of delay in handing over possession of the unit. Vide letter dated 15.01.2015, the complainant was asked to get conveyance deed executed.  He was directed to deposit balance amount towards the said plot and other charges. It is on record that vide letter dated 14.02.2015 Annexure C-11, the complainant agitated the demand raised, however, it appears that under protest, he deposited an amount of Rs.12,05,547/- towards balance price of the plot. He also undertook to deposit registration charges to the extent of Rs.9,07,605/- and Rs.11,500/- towards TDS, within 7 days.  Vide letter dated 26.05.2015, he was again intimated that the plot is ready for possession and registration of conveyance deed. On 08.06.2015, he deposited an amount of Rs.9,05,827/- for registration of conveyance deed. Further demand was raised to deposit an amount of Rs.90,140/-, which was also deposited by him. Conveyance deed was got executed between the parties on 05.11.2015.
3.         It is grievance of the complainant that conveyance deed was heavily loaded in favour of the opposite parties. It is stated that in the conveyance deed, many deficiencies are indicated in the project, in which the plot, in question, is situated. When he did not receive any offer of possession, he went to the site and found that the area was not developed. Photographs clicked on 18.05.2016 were placed on record. By stating as above, following relief was claimed by the complainant:-

1. Direct the OPs to make the Payment of Interest @18% per annum (Simple) on the Entire Deposited Amounts of the Complainant, Components comprising of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) of the Plot as also the Preferential Location Charges (PLC); both pocketed by the OPs during the period 11.03.2011 -21.11.2014 being the dates of the First Deposit till the Day before the Plot Buyers Agreement was signed: amount being time defined and quantified being a sum of Rs.52,81,670/-.
2. Direct the OPs to Refund the Amounts of Maintenance Security (Rs.1,74,998/-); Advance Common Area Maintenance Charges (Rs.5,166/-) as also the Extra Amount Charges for the Execution of the Conveyance Deed (Rs.91,409/-); hence a total sum of Rs.2,71,573/- is also liable to be Refunded to the Complainant alongwith interest thereon @18% per annum (Simple) w.e.f. the respective dates of their deposits;
3. Restrain the OPs from charging any Maintenance Charges/Holding Charges from the Complainant till such time, that they complete all the Amenities as promised by them in Year 2011,  secure a Completion Certificate from the Development Authority and are able to offer clear cut demarcation and possession of the Plot to the Complainant.
4. Direct the OPs to make the payment of the Annual Rental as paid by the Complainant to his Landlord during the 11.03.2013 till such time that the Possession is delivered in terms of the Amenities as promised in the Offer made  in the year 2011, receipt of the Completion Certificate as also the clear Demarcation of the Plot; amount being quantified sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as on date;
5. Direct the OPs to make the payment of the Interest @18% per annum (Simple) on the sums of Rs.9,05,827/- w.e.f. 08.06.2015 till 03.11.2015 as also on Rs.91,409/- w.e.f. 03.09.2015 till 03.11.2015 being the Fee/Charges as paid by the Complainant for Execution of the Conveyance Deed  for the period 08.06.2015 till 03.11.2015 when the Deed was finally executed;
6. Grant Costs of this Litigation assessed at Rs.55,000/-.”

 

4.         Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite parties, wherein many objections were raised, disputing the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was stated that since possession of the unit has been offered; conveyance deed has also been executed, now it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that development at the site was not complete. Partial completion certificate in respect of the unit, in question, was issued on 10.09.2014 and when depositing amount, at the time of offer of possession of the unit, not even a single defence was raised qua development, by the complainant, in his letter dated 14.02.2015 Annexure C-11. On offer made, the complainant agreed to get possession of the unit. He deposited the balance amount towards price of the plot and other charges. He deposited huge amount of more than Rs.9 lacs, to get conveyance deed executed, which was executed on 05.11.2015. Thereafter, he was again intimated that the plot is ready for possession. However, he has failed to turn up and act accordingly. It was further stated that he would not fall within the definition of consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Factual matrix of the case regarding allotment of plot; execution of Buyer’s Agreement; date of delivery of possession of unit; making of payment by the complainant, as mentioned in the complaint, towards the said unit was admitted. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
5.         In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in written version of the opposite parties.
6.         The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7.         We have heard Counsel for the parties  and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 
8.         At the time of arguments, it was specifically stated by Counsel for the complainant that besides claiming relief, as mentioned in relief clause of the complaint, the complainant is also seeking issuance of directions to the opposite parties for delivery of possession of the unit, in question, to him (complainant). On making above prayer and even prior thereto, it is positive averment of the opposite parties that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint, as the price of the unit falls beyond Rs.1 crore and complaint can only be filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
9.         Before dealing with above said objection, we will refer to Section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act), relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission:-

“17.  Jurisdiction of the State Commission. — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a)  to entertain—

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and

(ii) …………………

(b) ……………………..”.

10.         Above provision clearly mandates that this Commission can entertain and decide the complaint, the value of the goods whereof is less than one crore, at the time of filing the same. As has been noted in earlier part of this order and also not disputed by Counsel for the complainant that towards basic price of the plot plus (+) EDC, PLC and other charges, by 14.12.2015, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,14,08,386/-. It is further stated that if charges paid towards delayed interest/Conveyance deed are deducted, effective amount would come to Rs.1,02,68,812.80Ps. It is also on record and not disputed that on getting offer of possession, by writing a letter dated 14.02.2015 Annexure C-11, the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.12,05,547/- towards balance of price of the unit. Further, he agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.9,07,605/- towards registration and conveyance deed and Rs.91,410/-, which amount was also admittedly paid by him upto 03.09.2015.
11.         In this complaint, the complainant has also sought grant of interest, compensation and litigation expenses etc. If price of the unit, in question, and other reliefs are clubbed together, it will certainly exceed more than Rs.One crore. The objection raised by Counsel for the opposite parties is valid that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. So far as acquiescence on the part of the complainant in not indicating any defect qua development etc., when on receipt of offer of possession and he deposited further amount, is concerned, it is not necessary for this Commission, at this stage, to look into the same, in view of the findings given above.
12.         In view of the above, it is held that the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs, being not maintainable before this Commission for want of pecuniary Jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the Consumer Fora, having pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same, as per the Act.
13.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

03.10.2016_

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg.