The present Complaint has been filed challenging some demand raised way back in the year 2017 which amounts to                       ₹19,21,300/- only.  From the perusal of file, it is apparent that the Complainant is already in possession of the subject plot and the sale deed in his favour was also executed in 2013.  This matter relates only to the amount of about ₹19,21,300/- only.  This Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction and also the present Complaint is time barred.

Learned Counsel for the Complainant relying on the findings of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 -  Ambrish Kumar

-2-

Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. dated 7.10.2016 has argued that this Commission in the said case has clearly held that the value of the property and compensation claimed determine the pecuniary jurisdiction.  It is submitted that therefore, it is the cost of the plot which shall determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.  It is also argued that the Complaint is also not time barred since the payments were made by the Complainant vide receipts in December 2017 and January 2018 of the payments raised by the Opposite Party.

I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the relevant record.

The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a semi built-up residential house covering area 44.94 sq. mtrs. i.e. 483.55 sq. ft. bearing No.854, Sector 11 Panchkula (Haryana) constructed upon 10 marlas plot from Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh vide registered sale deed on 12.12.2013 for a consideration of ₹1.75 Crores.  This property was allotted to Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh on 02.09.2003 by HUDA and the Possession Certificate was issued by HUDA in their favour.  The Complainant had deposited a sum of ₹40,000/- on 11.11.2013, a sum of ₹37,700/- on 12.11.2013, and ₹15,05,600/- on 21.11.2013

-3-

on behalf of Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh, the previous allottees.  He also deposited ₹5,000/- on 13.11.2013 as administration fee on behalf of Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh and on such payment, the transfer permission letter dated 28.11.2013 in favour of Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh to transfer the property in the name of the Complainant was issued.  It is submitted that in this transfer certificate, it was clearly mentioned that there was no dues qua this property.  The Occupation Certificate was also issued in favour of the Complainant by the HUDA.  Thereafter, the allottees, i.e., Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh executed the sale deed in favour of the Complainant.  Thereafter, reallotment letter was issued in favour of the Complainant on 23.12.2013 on the basis of the sale deed.  The Complainant applied for sanction of the revised building plan.  Instead of sanctioning the revised building plan, an illegal and unjustified payment of ₹18,62,205.72ps. upto 25.05.2017 was raised by HUDA.  It is this payment which the Complainant is challenged before me.  This payment was raised for the first time wayback in May 2017.  The cause of action qua this payment therefore arose on that day.  The payments made by the Complainant to meet the demand does not given rise to a fresh cause of action.  Since the present Complaint has not been filed

-4-

within two years from that day, the Complaint is barred by limitation.

Also, the cause of action relates to the demands which were raised at the time when the Complainant applied for sanctioning of the revised building plan.  All the formalities regarding purchase of the property had been completed in the year 2013.  Vide present Complaint, the Complainant has also challenged this demand.  Therefore, the findings of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra) regarding pecuniary jurisdiction has                     no application.  In the said case, this Commission has held as under:

“If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant had not purchased the subject property from the Opposite Party but had purchased it from Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh by executing a sale deed.

In view of these facts and circumstances of this case, these findings have no application.  In this case, neither the allotment is

-5-

in question nor the possession of the property is sought.  It only relates to a subsequent demand of total sum of ₹19,21,300/- and this payment determines the pecuniary jurisdiction.  This Commission therefore does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction.  The Complaint may be filed before the Forum having competent pecuniary jurisdiction.

The Complaint stands disposed of in the above terms.