DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 99 of 22.3.2017

                                      Decided on:           23.8.2017

1.       Mrs.Usha Walia aged about 58 years w/of Sh.Navratan Singh Walia.

2.       Harinder Singh Walia aged about 34 years S/o Sh.Navratan Singh Walia

          Both residents o H.No.1074, SST Nagar, Patiala, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

Finlace Consulting (P) Ltd., C-56A/13 Sector 62, Noida-201309, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Labh Singh Sandhu,Adv.counsel for the complainants.

                                     Opposite party ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                                Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.1,04,250/- alongwith interest @24% per annum till its realization;
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as counsel fee
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses ;
4. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and
5. To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.

2.       In brief the case of the complainants is that through the OP, they booked a lockable space, Unit No.A/1122, measuring 500 Sq.Ft, in the project World Trade Centre, Chandigarh, situated at site 2, Block D, SAS Nagar, Mohali. It is stated that the booking was made at Patiala. Agreement was also executed at Patiala. Credit note was also issued by the OP at Patiala.  After booking the OP issued a Credit Note dated 18.2.2016 and assured that it will release Rs.1,04,250/- as discount, on completion of 40% basic cost and the same will be disbursed within 60 days of payment to developer as per schedule below 50% amount to be released after payment of 20% and remaining 50% to be released on completion of 40% payment. It is averred that they made more than 40%  payment and as per the assurance of the OP, it has to release the amount of Rs.1,04,250/- but it failed to do so. The complainants requested the OP through e-mails as well as whatsapp messages for releasing the amount but every time, OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other and thus violated the terms, mentioned in the credit note.  They also got sent a legal notice upon the OP but to no effect.The act and conduct of the OP amounted to deficiency in service on its part for which they have suffered mental agony and physical harassment.

3.       On being put to notice, the OP failed to appear despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.

4.       On  being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No.2 as Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.       In the present case,  the grievance of the complainants is  that they have paid more than 40% of the total sale consideration of the unit, to the OP within the stipulated period but the OP did not release the amount of Rs.1,04,250/- to them as agreed by the OP vide credit note,Ex.C2. From the copy of application Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant booked a Lockable Space, Unit No.A/1122, measuring 500 Sq.ft. having basic sale price of Rs.6742/- per sq.fit of super area in the project named World Trade Centre, Chandigarh, meaning thereby the total sale consideration of the unit in question comes to Rs.33,71,000/-(  500 sq. fit x 6742 per sq.fit).In the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1(2017) CPJ 1(NC),  the Hon’ble National Commission has held that, “ it is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. Even our  Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, has  relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble National Commission , while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction , in the case titled as Ansal Woodury Apartments Residents Welfare Associations Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Limited and another, in first appeal No.931 of 2016, decided on 16.5.2017. Since in the case in hand, the total sale consideration price of the unit exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Superior Courts, it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Accordingly the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Forum/Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:23.8. 2017      

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER