Haryana

StateCommission

CC/412/2016

RIPU DAMAN DOGRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

         

Complaint No  :       412 of 2016

Date of Institution:   20.12.2016

Date of Decision :    23.01.2017

 

 

 

Ripu Daman Dogra son of late Sh. Anil Dogra, resident of G-7, Anand Niketan, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi -110021

                                      Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

 

Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited, 5^th Floor, Orchid Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon -122002

                                      Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri  A.S. Khara, Advocate for complainant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)  

 

          Ripu Daman Dogra-complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that he booked a flat in project ‘The Corridors’, Sector 67-A, Gurgaon with Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘builder’) on March 22^nd, 2013 by paying an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-.  The basic sale price of the flat was Rs.1,53,49,642/-. The complainant paid Rs.31,12,944/- to the builder. The builder did not start the construction.  The complainant requested to refund the deposited amount but the builder did not pay any heed.

 

2.      After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the record over the file, the question arises for consideration is as to whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not?

3.      In First Appeal No.1194 of 2016, Santosh Arya Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited decided on October 07^th, 2016 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the short ground that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the total compensation claimed by the complainant works out to Rs.6,50,875/- and it being less than Rs.20,00,000/-, only the District Forum had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The findings of the Commission were not accepted by the Hon’ble National Commission by holding in paragraph No.4 of the order as under:-

          “4.    That being the legal position, in the present case, the value of the flat in question by itself being Rs.1,85,01,285/-, and even ignoring the amount of compensation, neither the State Commission nor the District Forum, as held by the State Commission, will have the jurisdiction and this Commission alone will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint filed by the Appellant.”

4.      In Parikshit Parashar Vs. M/s Universal Buildwell Private Limited and Others, decided on October 07^th, 2016 presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President, National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi, following issues dated August 11^th, 2016 interalia were referred by a Single Member Bench of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission to the Larger Bench:-

(i)      In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, or the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.

(ii)      Whether the interest claimed on such value by way of compensation or otherwise, is to be taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular consumer forum. 

(iii)     Whether “the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed” is to be taken as per the original value of such goods, or service at the time of purchase of such goods or hiring or availing of such service, or such value is to be taken at the time of filing the claim, in question.

(iv)    XXXXXX

(v)               XXXXXX

(vi)     XXXXXX 

          (vii)    XXXXXX.

5.      While answering Issue No.(i) referred to above, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held that 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, the National Consumer Commission alone would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  By referring the instance that a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before the National Consumer Commission because value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.

6.      Under Issue No.(ii), it was held that the amount of interest which can be paid as compensation, must necessarily be taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. 

7.      With regard to Issue No.(iii), it was held that if the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer is taken as the value of the goods or services in that case, the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.

8.      From the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements in both the cases Santosh Arya and Parikshit Parashar (supra), this Commission holds that the present complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission because value of the flat in question is itself Rs.1,53,49,642/-.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  It is accordingly dismissed. 

 

 

Announced 23.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK