Delhi

East Delhi

CC/799/2014

SANDEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

ERA LAND - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC  No.799/14:

In the matter of:

Sh. Sandeep Darbari

S/o. Lt. Sh.R.S. Darbari

R/o. D-162, Anand Vihar,

Delhi – 110 092

          Complainant

Vs

1. M/s. Era Landmarks

Regd. Office: 153, Okhla Ind. Estate, Phase-3,

New Delhi – 110 020

2. Mr. Sumit Varana (Managing Director)

M/S Era Landmarks,

Regd. Office: 153, Okhla Ind. Estate, Phase-3,

New Delhi – 110 020

3. Mr. Varana (Chairman)

Era Landmarks Head Office: B-24, Sec-3,

Noida – 201 301

4. Mr. Honey Katyal (Managing Director)

Investors Clinic Tapasya Corp. Heights

5.  

Noida – 201 301

                                                                                            Respondents

 

                                                                                           Date of Admission - 03/08/2014

                                                   Date of Order          - 22/09/2015

ORDER

Poonam Malhotra(Member):

The brief facts of the present compliant are thatin February 2012 the complainant booked a 2 BHK+ Study Apartment admeasuring 1450 Sq.ft. @ Rs3610/- per Sq.ft. vide Registration No.GGN/P&F/1378.  It is alleged that till April, 2012 he has paid 20% of the BSP of the Apartment. Repeated emails to the respondents were of no consequence.  It is in these circumstances that the complainant has prayed for immediate allotment of the 2BHK + Study Apartment and direction to the respondent to execute the Registered Sale Deed pertaining to the said Apartment. He has further prayed for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- and an order restraining the respondents from cancellation of the booking or to create third party interest in the said Apartment.

            All the respondents were served but the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not put appearance, only Respondent No.4 appeared but did not file any written statement. Case proceeded exparte against all the respondents.

Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case.

            Heard and perused the record.

Before going into the merits of this case, the preliminary issue with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present complaint needs to be decided though the same has not been raised by the respondents as they have been proceeded exparte in the case in hand.  The provision with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of a District Forum is contained in Section 11(1) of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The mandate of Section 11 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that it is the duty of the Court not to entertain any suit irrespective of the fact that lack of pecuniary jurisdiction has not been set up as a defense or the case has been proceeded exparte against the respondent/s.  If a suit cannot be entertained by a Court for want of pecuniary jurisdiction it has no choice but to dismiss the same even if the respondent has not challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. In the present complaint it is evident from the copies of the letters of the respondents dated 19/04/2012 &17/10/2012 addressed to the complainant and filed on record by him that the complainant had booked an Apartment of 1450 Sq.ft. instead of 1250 Sq.ft. + Study as stated in the complaint vide Registration No.GGN/P&F/1270 and not GGN/P&F/1378 as stated in the complaint. The Net Basic Selling Rate was Rs.3610/- per Sq.ft. as is evident from the copies of the said letters of the respondents filed on record by the complainant.  As such the Net Basic Selling Price of the booked Apartment was Rs.52,34,500/- (i.e., 1450 Sq.ft. x Rs.3,610 per Sq.ft. = Rs.52,34,500/-).  If we look to Section 11 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the language is very simple and clear.  Jurisdiction upto Rs.20 Lakhs consists of the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed. It does not include the interest part.  Since in the present complaint the cost of the Apartment in question is Rs.52,34,500/- and alongwith the allotment of the said Apartment the complainant has also prayed for direction to the respondent to execute the Registered Sale Deed pertaining to the said Apartment and he has also prayed for direction to the respondents to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to him besides other reliefs. Taking together the  Net Basic Selling Price of the booked Apartment, which is Rs.52,34,500/-, and the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by him from the respondent, the amount of relief claimed is well beyond Rs.20 Lakhs, the limit of Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the District Forum as provided for in the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From the above, an inference is drawn that this Forum has no Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

Taking into consideration the detailed discussion and observations made supra, we are of the view that the present complaint is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and is not triable before this Forum.  We direct this complaint be returned to the complainant for presentation before the Hon’ble State Commission which has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the cases up to the value of Rs. 1 Crore, if so advised.

Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.

 

 

 (Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                          (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                                                                                   President