Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1293/2016

PRIYANKA BHATLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAYPEE SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PIYUSH SINGHAL

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

N THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                Date of Arguments:       11.11.16                                                              Date of Decision:           15.11.16   

 

Complaint No. 1293/2016

In the matter of:

            PRIYANKA BHATLA

            W/o Mr. Mumuksh Koul

            R/o 1042, H 3 Block

            SBI Encl., Bodella

            Vikaspuri

            Delhi-110018                                                                           .......Complainant

                                                          Vs.

 

 

            Jaypee Sports International Ltd.

            Through its

            CEO Mr. Sameer Gaur at

            Sector- 128

NOIDA- 201304

Uttarpradesh

 

Also at:

 

JA House, 63 Basant Lok

Vasant Vihar

New Delhi-110057.                                                             .......Respondent

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

 

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint at the stage of admission is being disposed of on the plea of territorial jurisdiction alone.  The complainant booked a flat with OP in the Kove, Jaypee Green Sports City, Gautam Budh Nagar. The total price was Rs. 32,77,810/-.  Complainant took loan of Rs. 25,50,000/- from bank and had to repay the same in 240 installments of Rs.25,459/- each.  OP was to give possession within 42 months of provisional allotment dated 29.10.12. Complainant had paid Rs. 19,08,856/- till date.  Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 19,60,856/- with interest  @ 24% per annum, Rs. 10,00,000/- for compensation on account of mental agony, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses.

2.        Office of the OP is in NOIDA as per provisional allotment letter copy of which is at page 11.

3.        Counsel for complainant submitted that OP has office in Vasant Vihar also.  Firstly there is no document to support the same.  Secondly even if there is a branch office in Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, there has to be some cause of action besides regd. Office.  This is so as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court   in Sony Surgical.

The complainant is directed to be returned for presentation to State Commission.

Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

(O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

 

sbm