DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.481 of 2017
Date of institution: 10.07.2017
Date of decision : 14.09.2018
Bhartendu Kumar Mohaya son of Naranjan Dass Mohaya, H.No.70, Milk Colony, Village Dhanas, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Versus
Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Ambala Highway Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Directors/Authorised Representatives.
……..Opposite Party No.1
Pawan Bansal, Director of Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Ambala Highway Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
……..Opposite Party No.2
Labh Chand Mittal, Director of Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Ambala Highway Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
……..Opposite Party No.3
Hem Raj Mittal, Director of Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Ambala Highway Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
……..Opposite Party No.4
Ramesh Mittal, Director of Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Ambala Highway Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
……..Opposite Party No.5
Pawan Joshi, Authorised Representative of Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Ambala Highway Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
……..Opposite Party No.6
Parveen Thakur, Authorised Representative of Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Ambala Highway Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
……..Opposite Party No.7
Khushwinder, Authorised Representative of Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Ambala Highway Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
……..Opposite Party No.8
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Hapreet Saini, cl. for the complainant.
Shri Bhupinder Singh, counsel for the OPs.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant, for earning livelihood by way of self employment evinced interest in purchase of office space No.19 at 4th Floor of the project known as Royal Business Park, Zirakpur, floated by OPs. Price of the said space was Rs.16,90,582/-, but complainant deposited Rs.14,76,726/- on different dates out of the settled sale consideration amount. Despite deposit of this amount during period from 26.10.2012 to 03.04.2014, possession has not been delivered to complainant within stipulated period of 36 months from the date of start of construction/allotment dated 02.05.2013. Rather construction work alleged to be not completed and OPs not in a position to handover the possession. So by pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to refund the received amount of Rs.14,76,726/- with interest @ 18% per annum thereon from the dates of deposit till actual realisation. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- more claimed.
2. In reply submitted by OPs, it is pleaded inter alia as if this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction because aggregate of the claimed reliefs together with interest exceeds limit of Rs.20.00 lakhs as well as complainant is not consumer because property in question purchased for commercial establishment. Moreover, it is claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction because of Clause-6 (c) (i) of Buyers Agreement dated 05.12.2012. There is no privity of contract between complainant and OP No.2 to 8 and they have been un-necessarily impleaded as parties. Concealment of material facts also alleged by claiming that complainant was not having sufficient funds for making payment and that is why he kept on delaying making of payment of installments. Request for payment towards car parking charges submitted in writing on 18.03.2016 by complainant, was accepted by OPs. Complainant himself was aware that completion of the project will take time of 36 months atleast from the date of start of construction and as such it is claimed that assertion regarding urgent requirement of complainant is a cooked up story. Other averments are not much relevant because of main point involved qua lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
3. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-20 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Pawan Bansal, Director alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-18 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments submitted by complainant only, but oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. First and foremost question involved in this case is as to whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction or not. In case this Forum finds it having no pecuniary jurisdiction, then findings recorded on other issues/points will be having no worth/value because it is well settled that findings recorded by a court/Forum, having no jurisdiction, are nonest in the eyes of law.
6. After going through the complaint, it is made out that refund of the paid amount of Rs.14,76,726/- is claimed with interest @ 18% per annum from the dates of deposits till payment. Calculation sheet submitted by OPs shows that interest on the deposited amount of Rs.14,76,726/- @ 18% per annum (as claimed in the complaint) will be of amount of Rs.10,36,582/-, if this interest calculated from the dates of deposits of different amounts. Besides, compensation of amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- more claimed and as such aggregate of the claimed reliefs will come to Rs.27,38,308/-. The calculation sheet as submitted by counsel for OPs during course of arguments is formed part of record of this file. As the said calculation sheet is correct and as such it is obvious that aggregate of the claimed reliefs including that of interest amount, compensation and litigation expenses amount goes beyond pecuniary limit jurisdiction of this Forum of Rs.20.00 lakhs.
7. As per case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2016(4) CPR 83 decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Forum, not only the consideration paid or agreed to be paid by a consumer at the time of purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services is to be considered, but even the amount of compensation claimed alongwith interest claimed, has to be taken into consideration. So it is the aggregate of the paid consideration plus the amount of claimed interest plus amount of compensation and litigation cost, which together to be taken into consideration for determining whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction or not. View taken in above cited case has been affirmed further by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as First Appeal No.1364 of 2017 titled as M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others Vs. Lalitha Saini, decided on 21.08.2017. When the aggregate of the amount of reliefs claimed with amount of interest claimed alongwith amount of compensation and litigation expenses, taken into consideration in this case, then it is made out that total of all these amounts goes beyond the limit of Rs.20.00 lakhs. This Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with cases/complaints where the pecuniary jurisdiction limit does not exceed Rs.20.00 lakhs. However, that limit stands exceeded in this case, if the aggregate of the amount claimed alongwith interest, amount of compensation and costs of litigation taken together. So certainly this complaint deserves to be returned for presentation before appropriate Forum/Commission.
8. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint ordered to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the appropriate Forum/Commission. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
September 14, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
