Delhi

West Delhi

CC/21/406

SUDHIR KHURANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAURSONS INDIA PVT LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III (WEST)

C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI-110058

CASE NO. 406/21

IN THE MATTERS OF:-

 

MR. SUDHIR KHURANA                                                                                            ……COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

GAURSONS INDIA PVT. LTD.                                                                                     ……OPPOSITE PARTY  

 

 

PRESENT: COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT

 

Order by: Ms. Richa Jindal (Member)                                                                                 Dated: 11-01-2022

 

ORDER

File taken up through Video Conferencing.

The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs u/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service and is therefore claiming a sum of Rs. 62,26,783 as claim amount alongwith Rs 2,50,000 as compensation for such act besides other reliefs. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of maintainability of said complaint have been heard.

                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant is a buyer/allotee/purchaser of an apartment in the Project ‘1^st Avenue/GC-1” developed by the Gaursons India Private Limited (Respondent in the present case) in “Gaur city”, Plot no, GH 01, Sector 4, Greater Noida (West), Uttar Pradesh. The complainant a retired ex-serviceman from the Indian Air Force invested his hard-earned money, lifetime’s savings and money taken on loan to build his dream house, the aforesaid apartment complex, falls within the ambit of Section 2 (5) (v) of the CP Act, 2019 grievances against the Respondent herein, inter alia with respect to denial of effective and physical possession of the apartment, allotment of non-usable parking space, illegal levy of maintenance charges and claims for compensation towards the same.

That the complainant paid a consideration amount of Rs. 62,26,783/- including the service charge, according to the schedule and without any delay. As per the allotment letter dated 09.04.2015, the construction of the apartment was to be completed on 30.04.2016 plus one quarter for the fit-out period i.e. apartment was to be ready for possession by 01.08.2016 but the Respondent failed in delivering timely possession to the Complainant. The Complainant was never delivered possession and only the notional possession was given by Respondents after making several representations. Furthermore, exasperated at not having being able to secure the possession of the apartment for over 2 years despite having paid the full amount, when the Respondent offered the flat even after much delay the Complainant had no option but to sign on the dotted lines. However, on 05.11.2017 when the Complainant raised the issue of deficiency of service by the Respondent in terms of both the delay in possession and the quality of construction, the Respondent immediately took back the possession papers signed by the complainant. The Respondent through email dated 29.08.2021 illegally demanded maintenance charges along with 18% interest levied on it and directed Complainant to clear all dues. Hence this Complaint filed by the complainant.

In the present case admittedly complainant has prayed for refund of RS 62,26,783 /- which does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Section 34 (1) of the consumer Protection Act, 2019 which was further amended on 30^thDecember 2021 explains the pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Commission as

1. Subject to the other provisions of this Act the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed Fifty Lakh rupees: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

Therefore, as the amount paid exceeds the limit to which this Commission has competent jurisdiction, this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint

                The complaint is therefore directed to be returned to the complainant along with annexures against acknowledgement with liberty to file before the appropriate commission. A copy of complaint be retained for records. Complaint is disposed off accordingly in above terms.

A copy of order be sent to the complainant free of cost by post. Order be sent to www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President