Haryana

StateCommission

CC/56/2016

RAMANDEEP SINGH AND KAWALDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAPSKO BUILDERS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY PATHAK

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.56 of 2016

                                             Date of Institution: 02.03.2016

          Date of Decision: 29.03.2016

Sh.Ramandeep  Singh and Sh.Kawaldeep Singh S/o Sh.Harbans Singh 274 Basant Avenue Ludhiana Punjab 141013 through Sh.Ramandeep Singh S/op Sh.Harbans Singh  (POA Holder for Kawaldeep Singh)

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Mapsko Builders Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors/ C.E.O’s having its registered office at 52, North Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi 110026.

2.      Having its Branch Office at 125, First Floor, Vipul Agora, MG Road, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

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

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr. Ajay Pathak, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the complainant that actually the plot in question was allotted to one Vivek Kumar and Builder Buyers Agreement (In short “Agreement”) was signed with him on 25.11.2008. They purchased this plot from Vivek Kumar vide agreement dated 27.09.2013 and in this way stepped into shoes of Vivek Kumar. Opposite Party (O.P.) No.1 unilaterally and illegally escalated External Development Charges (EDC) and charged Rs.3,13,600/- from them.  Entire payment has been made to O.P.No.1 as per agreement, but, even they the possession of plot is not delivered.  As per agreement the possession was to be delivered within 42 months from the date of execution. Due to delay in delivery in possession, O.P.No.1 is liable to pay Rs.13,43,000/- alongwith interest @ 18%.  They are also entitled for Rs.1000/- per square feet due to increase in property prices as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Puneet Malhotra Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. (consumer complaint Nos 232, 233 and 293 of 2014 and IA/9215/2014 vide order dated 29.01.2015).  The O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs.3,13,000/- of EDC, Rs.five lacs for mental harassment and agony, Rs.20/- lacs due to increase in the price of the property, Rs.66883/- pertaining to EMI.  Rs.3,70,000/- @ Rs.5/- per month per square feet till the date of the filing of the complaint alognwith the interest @ 18% and Rs.70,000/- as of litigation proceedings. As the amount claimed is exceed Rs.50/- lacs, so this commission is having jurisdiction to try this complaint.

2.      At the time of admission arguments on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction are heard.

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the O.Ps. agreed vide agreement dated 25.11.2008 to deliver possession within 42 months, but, the same is not delivered as yet.  So they are entitled for compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. feet per month after expiry of 42 months till filing of the complaint.  As prices have increased, so they are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.20/- lacs, besides Rs.5/- lacs for harassment, Rs.66883/- for EMI and Rs.3,13,600/- of EDC, so this commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra  III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC),  opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in first appeal No.887 of 2013 titled as M/s Omaxe Ltd. Vs.  Ms. Iqbal Begum and opinion of Jammu and Kashmir State Commission in Brinder Nath Vs. Vice Chancellor, University of Jammu & Ors. III (1996) CPJ 384.

4.      This argument is devoid of any force.  As per opinion of   this Commission in Complaint No.19 of 2014 titled as Vinita Goyal and another Vs.M/s Unitech Limited and another decided on 21.02.2014, value of the flat cannot be taken into consideration for pecuniary jurisdiction. Complainants have no-where requested that O.Ps. be directed to refund the amount and that they had purchased another plot at extra price. When they are seeking relief about possession of property, already purchased by them from Vivek Kumar at that very price, there is no question of compensation on the ground of increase in price of the property.  Amount of compensation qua mental harassment etc. is highly exaggerated.

5.      Hon’ble National Commission in Kumari Femy and others Vs. Kavitha V.K. (Dr.) and others, 1 (2013) CPJ 34 (NC) did not entertain the complaint observing that the compensation claimed was highly exaggerated and did not borne out by the material placed on record.

6.      In kumara Femy’s case (supra) reliance was placed upon Ratna Ghosh and another Vs. Dr.P.K.Agarwal and others, II (2010) CPJ 204 (NC)=Civil Appeal No.6409 of 2010, decided on 06.08.2010 (S.C.) and Sujata Nath Vs. Popular Nursing Home and others, III (2011) CPJ 239 (NC)=Civil Appeal No.8642 of 2011 decided on 14.10.2011 (S.C.).

7.      The issue in hand was also recently decided by a bench of Hon’ble National Commission headed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.K.Jain, President, while dismissing consumer Complaint no.383 of 2013, Indrani Chatterjee and another Vs. Amri Hospitals alongwith fifteen other complaints, vide common order dated November 7^th, 2014, observing as under:-

“We are of the opinion that, as at present, the complainants have not been able to satisfy us as to on what basis the claims ranging between Rs.7,00,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,00,000/-, have been quantified. We are convinced that the claims have been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.”

8.      On a careful analysis of the principles stated in the foregoing cases and having perused the case file, this Commission is of the view that the claim of the complainant is highly exaggerated and not borne out by the material placed on the record.  The complainant has unreasonably inflated the claim for bringing this complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  The instant complaint is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.  Similar view was also expressed by this Commission in complaint No.125 of 2015 titled as Charan Dass Vs Medanta, The Medicity and others decided on 04.08.2015. If the remaining amount is taken into considerations, it is less than Rs.20/- lacs and this complaint is not within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws as they are based on different footings.

9.      Taking into consideration every aspect, it is clear that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the complaint is hereby dismissed.

10.    However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before this Commission to seek remedy before competent Forum, if so advised.

 

March 29th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.