Haryana

StateCommission

CC/167/2015

NADEEM HALEEM - Complainant(s)

Versus

EMAAR MFG LAND LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.167 of 2015

                                                       Date of Institution: 22.09.2015                            Date of Decision: 05.11.2015

 

Nadeem Haleem S/o Sh.Mohd. Haleem R/o # 5127/2, Cat-1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chd-160101.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, ECE House, 1^st Floor, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

          …..Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Nadeem Haleem complainant in person.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the complainant that he booked a flat with opposite party (O.P.) vide reference dated 11.08.2009 and buyer’s agreement was signed on 20.01.2010. As per clause 11 of agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months from the commencement of the construction which was started by O.P. after more than one year.  More than 60 months have lapsed, but possession is not delivered. It amounts to deficiency in service and O.P. be directed to pay interest @ 24% per annum on Rs.39,40,348/-, which is already deposited by him.  Interest comes to approximately Rs.18,91,000/-.  O.P. be also directed to pay Rs.1,46,000/- as of interest on delay in starting construction, Rs.Five lacs for mental harassment etc. and Rs.One lac as cost of litigation.

2.      Arguments heard at the time of admission of complaint. File perused.

3.      It is alleged by complainant that when builder is charging interest @ 24% he is also entitled to interest at the same rate  as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Santosh Johari Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. decided on 08.06.2015 in complaint case no.429 of 2014 and it comes to the amount claimed by him.

4.      At the time of admission it is to be seen prima facie whether complaint is within pecuniary jurisdiction or not.

5.      If it appears that complainant has exaggerated the amount just to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission so that he is not asked to file complaint before District forum. Complainant has given reference of clause 11 of the agreement. Clause 13 is pertaining to the compensation if possession is not delivered as per agreement, which Rs.5/- per sq. feet. Complainant has no-where mentioned area of the flat in the complaint. At this stage it cannot be opined that the O.P. is at fault and interest at the rate claimed by complainant should be awarded. This fact can be adjudicated upon at the final stage. Case law cited by complainant can be taken into consideration at the final stage.   Even in that case interest was awarded @ 12%.  As per that rate interest claimed by complainant should be half i.e. Rs.9,45,500/-. Amount about compensation qua mental harassment etc. cannot be a ground to presume pecuniary jurisdiction because it is not the part of the claim.  Prima facie claim is much less then pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and be returned to file it before the District forum having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter.

6.      Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

 

November 05th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.