Haryana

StateCommission

CC/159/2015

VARINDER KUMAG GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DSS BUILDTECH PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

HITENDER KANSAL

28 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complain t No  :      159 of 2015

Date of Institution:    09.09.2015  

Date of Decision :    28.09.2015 

1.      Varinder Kumar Goyal s/o Sh. Baziri Lal Goyal

2.      Aman Goyal s/o Sh. Varinder Kumar Goyal

3.      Varun Goyal s/o Sh. Varinder Kumar Goyal

All Residents of 235-A, Saini Vihar, Peer Baba Road, Baltana, Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab).

                                      Complainants

Versus

1.      M/s DSS Buildtech Private Limited, 506, 5^th Floor, Time Square Building, B Block, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon – 122 009, through its Managing Director/Authorized Person. 

 2.     M/s Silverglades Holdings Private Limited, 506, 5^th Floor, Time Square Building, B Block, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon -122009 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.

                                      Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

For Complainant:         Shri Damanbir Singh Sobti, Advocate.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Varinder Kumar Goyal, his sons Aman Goyal and Varun Goyal-complainants, booked a flat with M/s Silverglades Holdings Private Limited-Opposite Party No.2 by paying Rs.6.00 lacs through cheque No.394825 dated 30.07.2013, drawn at HDFC Bank, Sector-11, Panchkula, that is, 10% price of the flat. The opposite party No.2 acknowledged the receipt of Rs.6.00 lacs and transferred the same to M/s DSS Buildtech Private Limited-opposite Party No.1. The complainant further paid Rs.7,49,964/-. In all, the complainant paid Rs.13,49,964/-.

2.      The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties booked the flat and received the amount without obtaining any licence from the competent authorities to construct the flat/project. On coming to know about the situation, he demanded refund of Rs.13,49,964/-, which the opposite parties did not refund. Hence, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.13,49,964/- alongwith interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of deposit till its realization and adding hypothetical amount towards damages making total claim to Rs.32,84,642/- to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

3.      Indisputably, the complainant paid only Rs.13,49,964/- to the opposite parties in 2013. The question for determination is as to whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not?

4.      How much compensation is to be awarded, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The complainant cannot inflate by taking hypothetical calculations so as to bring the amount claimed within the pecuniary jurisdiction and then file the complaint.

5.      This Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 125 of 2015, “Charan Dass Versus          Medanta, The Medicity and another” decided on August 4^th, 2015, dealt with such a case as under:-

“8.     Hon’ble National Commission in Kumari Femy and others vs. Kavitha V.K. (Dr.) and others, 1 (2013) CPJ 34 (NC), did not entertain the complaint observing that the compensation claimed was highly exaggerated and did not borne out by the material placed on record.

9.      In Kumari Femy’s case (Supra) reliance was placed upon Ratna Ghosh and another vs. Dr. P.K. Agarwal and others, II(2010) CPJ 204 (NC)=Civil Appeal No.6409 of 2010, decided on 6.8.2010 (S.C.) and Sujata Nath vs. Popular Nursing Home and others, III(2011) CPJ 239 ((NC)=Civil Appeal No.8642 of 2011 decided on 14.10.2011 (S.C.).     

10.    The issue in hand was also recently decided by a bench of Hon’ble National Commission headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President, while dismissing Consumer Complaint No.383 of 2013, Indrani Chatterjee and another vs. Amri Hospitals alongwith fifteen other complaints, vide common order dated November 7^th, 2014, observing as under:-

“We are of the opinion that, as at present, the complainants have not been able to satisfy us as to on what basis the claims ranging between Rs.7,00.00,000/- to Rs.12,00,00,000/-, have been quantified. We are convinced that the claims have been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission”.

11.   On a careful analysis of the principles stated in the foregoing cases and having perused the case file, this Commission is of the view that the claim of the complainant is highly exaggerated and not borne out by the material placed on the record. The complainant has unreasonably inflated the claim for bringing his complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The instant complaint is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law”.

 

6.      In view of the above, the complaint be returned to the complainant with liberty to file the same before the Appropriate District Forum.

 

 

Announced: 28.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL