Haryana

StateCommission

CC/186/2015

RAM AVTAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

IREOGRACE REALTECH PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PRIYANKA SUD

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.186 of 2015

                                             Date of Institution:20.10.2015

          Date of Decision: 14.12.2016

 

Ram Avtar S/o Balbir Singh, R/o LGF 21 E, Sushant Shopping Arcade,Sushant Lok-I, Gurgaon.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 5^th Floor Orchid Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurgaon 122002.

2.      Anupam Nagalia Director M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 304, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110015, Delhi, India.

3.      Shailendra Kumar Agrawal Director M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. 304, Kanchan House, Karampur Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110015, Delhi, India.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

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

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Ms.Priyanka Sud, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Ms.Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

                        It is alleged by the complainant that he booked flat No.802, Tower No.A-9, measuring 1891.51 sq. feet in the project known as “The Corridors” with the basic sale price of Rs.8750/- per sq. ft. Buyers agreement Annexure C-1 was executed  on 04.04.2014 between them, but, at the time of handing over of apartment buyer’s agreement dated 04.04.2014, O.P. demanded sale price at Rs.9400/- per sq. feet.  As possession was not delivered within the stipulated time, they  be directed to refund Rs.37/- lakhs already deposited with them alongwith interest.

2.               O.ps. have filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that this commission is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint. There is no deficiency in service on their part rather there is a fault on the part of complainant.  Preliminary objections about concealing of true facts, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Arguments heard. File perused.

4.                Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that  the complainant has requested to refund Rs.37/- lakhs.  To determine pecuniary jurisdiction, amount sought to be refunded is to be taken into consideration. Value of flat is of no relevance as per opinion of Hon’ble National  commission in Consumer case No.97 of 2016 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016 while answering issue Nos.ii, iii and iv qua reference dated 24.05.2016. Interest claimed also cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. So looking from any angle it is clear that this commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint. 

5.                This argument is of no avail. For ready reference issue Nos.ii, iii and iv of reference dated 24.05.2016, mentioned in Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra) are reproduced as under:-

“Issue Nos. (ii), (iii)  and (iv):- A complaint under section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable before this Commission where the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation, if any, claimed in respect of all such consumers exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. The value of the goods purchased or the services hired and availed of by an individual consumer or the size, or date of booking/allotment/purchase of the flat would be wholly irrelevant in such a complaint where the complaint relates to the sale/allotment of several flats/plots in the same project/building.”

6.                From the bare perusal of this portion it is clear that while answering these issues it was opined by Hon’ble National commission that value of goods or services availed by an individual is wholly irrelevant and value or services availed by all the petitioners is to be taken into consideration.  This opinion pertains to complaint filed collectively. 

7.                Whether value of property and interest claimed is to be taken into consideration or not is clearly discussed by Hon’ble National Commission in this case in reference dated 11.08.2016 which is as under:-

          “Reference dated 11.08.2016

          Issue No.(i)

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.

          Issue No.(ii)

The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer Forum.

          Issue No.(iii)

The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer forum.”

As per this opinion it is clear that value of flat alongwith interest etc. is to be taken into consideration and not only the amount sought to be refunded. This view was also followed by Hon’ble National Commission in first appeal No.1194 of 2016 titled in Santosh Arya Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited decided on 07.10.2016. For ready reference relevant Para No.3 of this judgement is also reproduced as under:-

“3.     On a bare reading of the afore-extracted provision, it is clear that it is only the value of the goods or services and the quantum of the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, which determines the jurisdiction of the State Commission.  In other words, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods agreed to be paid by the consumer and the amount claimed as compensation, which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the state Commission. the act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiency in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to a consumer.”

8.                As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in aforesaid case laws it is clear that not only the  amount of refund, but, interest and other relief claimed is also to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  In the present case value of the flat is  Rs.1,65,50,713/- lakhs, which is much beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.   When this commission is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter, it is not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgement without jurisdiction is nullity as opined by 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.

9.                As a sequal to above discussion, complaint is dismissed beyond jurisdiction.

 

December 14th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.