DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/170/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Ramesh Fotedar,
S/o Late Sh Brij Lal Fotedar
R/o GH-13/673, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi - 110087
…..COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s.Earth Iconic Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director/ authorized signatory
A. Sh. Naveen Goel
B. Sh. Atul Gupta
C. Sh. Vikas Gupta
D. Sh. Rajnish Mittal
E. Sh. Avdesh Goel
All directors of Earth Infrastructures Ltd.,
1st Floor, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005
F. Ms. Bushra Aslam Employee of Earth Infrastructure Ltd., C/o A-1, C & D, Sec – 16, Near Metro Station, Noida U.P.
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Shri R.S. Nagar, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint is filed by Shri Ramesh Fotedar (in short the complainant) U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) inter alia pleading therein that in July 2011 complainant
came in contact with OPs No. 1 to 5 who agreed to give him fully furnished apartment measuring 465 sq. feet on 9th Floor situated at Plot no. 1 Sec
Techzone, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh for a total sale consideration of Rs. 18,86,800. Complainant paid Rs. 1,60,000/- at the time of booking in August 2011, Rs. 12,59,970/- in October 2011, Rs. 2,50,000/- in April 2015 and Rs. 36,564/- Total Rs. 17,06,534/- to them. OPs assured to pay him monthly return at the rate of 12% till possession of the apartment is handed over and subsequently assured rental income. OPs paid certain interest up to September 2015 to the complainant. OPs stopped further payment of interest w.e.f. October 2015. OPs raised demand of Rs. 92768/- on 14/10/2015. Complainant is not liable to pay the same as he has already paid Rs. 17,06,534/- out of Rs. 18,86,800/-. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund his deposited amount of Rs. 17,06,534/- with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of receipt of the amount, Rs. 2 Lacs as compensation for causing mental pain and agony along with litigation expenses.
2. OPs filed their written submissions and pleaded that complainant booked a unit in their project and paid Rs. 17,06,534/-. It is further pleaded that he failed to pay balance amount of Rs. 4,66,830/- on or before June 2013. It is also stated that in view of clause 28 of the application form OPs are entitled to forfeit/deduct earnest money of total BSP.
3. We have heard complainant in person, Shri Sunil Wali Counsel for OP on pecuniary jurisdiction.
4. The total sale price of the apartment is 18,86,800/-. He has paid Rs. 17,06,534/- to the OP. Complainant has claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Even if interest at the rate 9% is granted on Rs. 17,06,534/- from the
date of deposit till date and nominal amount of compensation the same would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum. As per Section 11 (i) of the Act the District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate claims where the value of goods and services and the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs. 20 Lacs.
5. In Shivani Sharma Vs. TDI M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Complaint Case No. 464/2016 vide order dated 24/10/2017 our State Commission observed that compensation and interest have to be added to decide about pecuniary jurisdiction. It held :
‘’Compensation is in any case to be added to the value of goods for determining pecuniary jurisdiction as contemplated in the Act. Interest cannot be ignored for the purpose, as apparently interest and compensation are the component of the same project. Infact as per the law settled both interest and compensation can, be granted, depending on the facts of the case. In the event the deficiency of service is established, sufferer in our view is entitled to both, interest for the delayed period and compensation for the harassment and mental agony caused to him due to alleged
deficiency. Their Lordship in the matter of Bangalore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank – AIR 2007 SC 2198 – has held.
‘’…..the complainant can be awarded the compensation in addition to the interest’’.
The Hon’ble NCDRC while disposing of the complaint case no. 213/2012 on 14.03.2016 in the matter of Vijay Kumar Arya vs. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. passed following orders.
‘’In view of the above discussion the OP is directed to pay Rs. 38,20,000/- alongwith interest @12% from the date of deposit by the complainant till the date of refund by the OP. The OP is further directed to pay Rs. One Lakh as compensation.’’
6. In Gurmukh Singh v/s Greater Mohali Area Development Revision Petition No. 3496/2017 against order dated 11.10.2017 in appeal no. 464/2017 of State Commission, Punjab. Complainant Gurmukh Singh applied for allotment of an apartment with Greater Mohali Area Development (OP). He deposited total amount of Rs. 11,10,000/- in January 2013. He requested OP for refund of the amount deposited by him on the ground that his financial position was not good. Complainant submitted in the consumer complaint that he
received a partial refund of Rs. 5,96,091/- and in this way suffered loss of Rs. 4,76,910/-. He filed consumer complainant in question seeking refund of the said amount along with another Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost of borrowing the funds. He sought direction to OP to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,67,910/- along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost. District forum ordered return of the complaint following the decision of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (Supra). State Commission dismissed the appeal. National Commission dismissed the revision petition observing that total value of goods and services is to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a forum and not the total amount paid by an allotte.
7. In view of the Judgement in Ambrish Kumar Shukla reiterated in Gurmukh Singh v/s Greater Mohali Area Development Revision Petition (supra) even though only refund of the amount paid is claimed, it is the total sale consideration and value of relief claimed which is compensation and
interest which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction. As discussed above the same is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Accordingly the instant complaint be returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. Copy of the same be retained on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 20th Day of Nov. 2018.
