Haryana

StateCommission

CC/164/2016

HARPAL SINGH HEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M3M INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

INDERDEEP SINGH

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No  : 164 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:              10.06.2016

                                                Date of Decision :                29.09.2016

 

 

 

1.      Lt. Col. Harpal Singh Heer son of Sh. Jagtar Singh Heer, resident of 4/288, Kelanagar Crossing, Jeerangarh Road, Aligarh – 2020001, presently residing at P-204/4, Tom Enclave, Sultania Infranty Lines, Bhopal Military Station, Bhopal, MP -462001.

2.      Ms. Kavineet Tiwana D/o Sh. H.P.S. Tiwana, resident of 1001, New Greenwood CGHS, Plot No.6, Sector 52, Gurgaon Haryana, presently residing at 1460, Silver City Heights, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab

                                      Complainants

Versus

1.      M3M India Limited, Paras Twin Towers, Tower-B, 6^th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director/Incharge.

 

2.      Sehgal Estate Authorized Partners of M3M India Limited, Paras Twin Towers, Address Twin Towers, Address D 133, Sector 57, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Managing Director/Incharge.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                                                         

Present:               Shri Inderdeep Singh, Advocate for complainants.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          For the limited purpose of adjudicating upon the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission in entertaining the present complaint, it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts.

2.      Lt. Col. Harpal Singh Heer and Ms. Kavineet Tiwana-complainants booked flat with M3M India Limited (for short, ‘Builder’). The price of the flat was Rs.60,95,092/-. The complainants paid Rs.18,85,059/- to the builder.  Builder Buyer Agreement dated April 09^th, 2013 was executed between the parties.  As per the complainants, the project shown to them was almost one kilometer away from Najafgarh in the map whereas factually it was not more than 100 meters away from their residential flat.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      By filing the present complaint, complainants sought direction to the builder:-

          “It is therefore respectfully prayed that opposite party be directed to return the amount of Rs.18,85,059/- alongwith compound interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of payment.

 

          It is also respectfully prayed that complainant be awarded with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of loss of opportunity further Rs.5,00,000/- on account of pain, agony and harassment suffered by complainant because of deliberate default committed by opposite parties and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of equity, fair play and justice.”

         

4.      Learned counsel for the complainants argued that though the amount deposited is less than Rs.20.00 lacs, which falls within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, however since the complainant has also sought the interest, so by adding interest, the amount payable by the builder would work out to more than Rs.20.00 lacs and therefore this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

5.      The contention raised is not tenable. It is well settled principle of law that the interest cannot be added at initial stage to bring the case within the jurisdiction of State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be.  Support to this view can be had from the recent judgment in Consumer Case No.1369 of 2015, Ishita Bhatia and another versus M/s Unitech Limited and others, decided on March 07^th, 2016, wherein Hon’ble National Commission while relying upon its earlier decision by three judges Bench and Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“It is well settled that the interest cannot be added at this initial stage to bring the case within the jurisdiction of National Commission.  In three judges Bench judgment reported in Shahbad Co-operative Sugar Mills vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. II(2003) CPJ 81 (NC), it was clearly, specifically and unequivocally laid down that interest is not to be counted or added at this stage.  We are bound by the judgment of three judges Bench authority.  As per law laid down by five judges bench of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673,  we are bound to follow the judgment of three members.  Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act has crystalline clarity.  There is no mention of interest.  For interest, discretion of the Court is required as per law laid down in Supreme court authorities reported in Manjul Srivastava Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1758-1759 of 2002, JT 2008 (9) SC 584 and Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors. JT 2007 (4) SC 248.”

 

6.      This case is fully covered by Ishita Bhatia’s case (Supra). It is held that interest cannot be added at the initial stage to bring the case within the jurisdiction of State Commission because for interest, discretion of the Court is required as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjul Srivastava’s case. 

7.      In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file the same before the Appropriate District Forum.  It would be open to the complainants to file an application before the District Forum under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding the period spent before this Commission for the purpose of computation of limitation in terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995)3 S.C.C. 583.

 

 

 

Announced 29.09.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

UK