Haryana

StateCommission

A/22/2015

COUNTRYWIDE PROMOTERS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAURAV CHOPRA & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

HEMANT SAINI

13 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No. 986 of 2014

Date of Institution: 29.10.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 13.02.2017

 

1.      Gaurav Chopra S/o Mr. Jatinder Chopra

2.      Aastha Chopra W/o Shri Gaurav Chopra.

          Both r/o Flat O.J-901, “BPTP Freedom Park Life”, Sector 57, Gurgaon.

…..Appellants

Versus

1.      M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at M-11, Middle Circus, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.      M/s B.P.T.P. Ltd., Regd. Office at M-11, Middle Circus, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

        …..Respondents

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

                              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr. Atul Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

Appeal No.22 of 2015

Date of institution:- 14.11.2014 and 09.01.2015

Date of Decision:- 13.02.2017

 

1.      M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at M-11, Middle Circus, Connaught Circus, New Delhi through its authorized representative.

2.      M/s B.P.T.P. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at M-11, Middle Circus, Connaught Circus, New Delhi through its authorized representative.

…..Appellants

Versus

1.      Gaurav Chopra S/o Mr. Jatinder Chopra, Flat O.J-901, Tower J,  BPTP Freedom Park Life, Sector 57, Gurgaon.

2.      Aastha Chopra W/o Shri Gaurav Chopra r/o Flat O.J-901, BPTP Freedom Park Life, Sector 57, Gurgaon.

…..Respondents

 

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

                              Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-             Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate counsel for the   appellants.

Mr.Atul Malhotra Advocate counsel for the respondents.

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Vide this order above mentioned two appeals bearing Nos.986 of 2014 and 22 of 2015 will be disposed off as they have been preferred against the same order dated 18.09.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short ‘District Forum’).

2.      It was alleged by complainants that they booked flat with opposite parties (O.Ps.) and flat No.J-901 measuring  2587 sq. feet was allotted to them having value of Rs.69,84,900/- excluding EDC charges @ 261 per square feet vide letter dated 12.06.2009.  Possession was to be delivered within  24 months from the date of commencement of construction. Otherwise OP was liable to pay compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. feet per month on super area. Possession was handed over to him on 12.02.2010   though construction was not complete.  They sent so many notices to O.Ps. for completion of all development facilities etc. and not to charge any amount qua club membership etc., but, without any result. O.Ps. be directed to refund the following additional charges:-

“a.     Additional External Development charges (EDC)-Rs.4,68,480/-

b.      Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC)-Rs.89,122/-

c.       Refund of car parking charges-Rs,2,50,000/-.

d.      Refund of club membership charges-Rs.100000/-

e       Balance penalty charges on account o delayed possession of @ Rs.5 as stipulated in the agreement.

f        Unwarranted Administrative charges and Conveyance Deed charges-Rs.48,234/-

g       Refund of Excess Area charges- Rs.7,56,000/-.”

3.        O.ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that District Forum was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint because relief claimed was approximately Rs.22,46,836/- whereas that was having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter upto Rs.20/- lacs.  Possession was delivered to complainant on 31.11.2009 and complaint was filed in the year 2012, so it was time barred.  Other allegations were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 18.09.2014 and directed  O.Ps. to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 09% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom both the parties have preferred appeals as mentioned above wherein O.Ps. challenged their liability to pay compensation and complainant has requested to enhance the compensation.

6.      Before deciding case on merits it is better to decide application filed by counsel for appellants in appeal No.22 of 2015 for condonation of delay of 62 days.  It was alleged that delay was not intentional and was caused due to bona fide difficulties, so the delay may be condoned.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant vehemently argued that  there is inordinate delay of 62 days in filing the appeal, so the same cannot be condoned as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Jet Airways Vs. Varaderajan Muruga 2016(2) CLT 101.

8.      This argument is of no avail. As per facts mentioned in the application, it is clear that delay was not intentional and it had occurred due to administrative problems.  Counsel for appellant was suffering from viral fever and was bed ridden and that is why he could not file appeal in time. There was no laxity on the part of complainants.  In view of the above discussion delay of 62 days in filing appeal is condoned.

9.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that O.Ps. have raised objection about jurisdiction in their appeal, whereas they should have raised this objection at the very initial stage.  Now it cannot be argued that complaint be dismissed only on this ground. To this effect he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Reshma Bhagat & Anr. Vs. Supertech ltd. (June) 2016 CPJ 548 (NC).

10.    This argument is devoid of any force. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that O.Ps. raised objection about pecuniary jurisdiction in the very beginning i.e. at the time of filing of reply.  Para Nos.2 and 10 of reply, pertaining to this fact, are reproduced as under:-

“Para No.2

That at the outset it is stated that the Hon’ble Forum does not have the jurisdiction to try the present complaint as per the Consumer protection Act, which respectfully limits the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum to Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs), whereas as per the prayers of the complainant, the complainant is seeking in total Rs.22,46,836/- (Twenty Two Lacs Forty Six thousands Eight Hundred thirty Six only), and there is a clear legal bar to the effect of the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court to adjudicate any matters having value beyond Rs.20,00,000/-.”

“Para No.10:-

“That the prayer clause is wrong and specifically denied. That the complaint is seeking Rs.22,46,836/-. That clearly the present complaint as per the prayers is barred as per the limit of jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.”

11.    It cannot be alleged that O.ps. have not raised objection about jurisdiction at the very early stage. As per Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short  “Act”) District Forum can adjudicate upon the dispute upto Rs.20/- lacs only, whereas in the present case it was more than Rs.22/- lacs. These views are also fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in revision petition No.1348 of 20014 titled as TDI Infrastructure Limited Vs. Pradeep Mathur decided on 16.10.2015.

12.    Complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because in that case objection about jurisdiction was raised at the fag end whereas in the present case objection to this effect was raised in the very beginning.  It is well settled proposition of law that judgement without jurisdiction is nullity. Reference to this effect can be made to the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995. In view of above discussion, impugned order dated 18.09.2014 is set aside, appeal No.22 of 2015 is allowed, complaint  and appeal No.986 of 2014 are dismissed.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal bearing No.22 of 2015 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

14.    The original judgement be attached with appeal No.986 of 2014 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.22 of 2015.

 

February 13th, 2017               Urvashi Agnihotri,                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                  Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.