Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1061/2014

AMIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. K.M SHUKALA - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  1061/14

 

Shri Amit Arora

S/o Shri S.C. Arora

R/o B-2, Surajmal Vihar

Delhi – 110 092                                                            ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Mr. K.N. Shukla, CEO

M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.

517-A, 5^th Floor, Narain Manzil

23, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place

New Delhi – 110 001

 

2. M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.

517-A, 5^th Floor, Narain Manzil

23, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place

New Delhi – 110 001                                                       ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 22.12.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 24.07.2017

Judgment Passed on: 25.07.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Amit Arora against      Shri K.N. Shukla, CEO, M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) and M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that complainant Shri Amit Arora purchased a flat No. D-203, measuring 1695 sq. ft. in the group housing project “Capital Gateway” from Mr. Charles Devlin D’Costa in January 2013 for which fresh allotment letter dated 18.01.2013 was issued by M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. in his name.  He received a demand letter from company on account of interest on delayed payment amounting to Rs. 19,036/-.  This letter dated 14.05.2013 also showed an amount of Rs. 1,26,142/- already received by the company.  However, the company forced him to pay the full amount of Rs. 1,45,178/-, which was paid by him under protest. 

          He has further stated that he became member in January 2013 and the interest demand was for the period December 2010, February 2011 and July 2012.  He wrote several emails to M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. regarding the demand notice stating therein that any past payment of claim of interest on late payment of installments from previous owner cannot be recovered from him particularly for a period when he was not the member of the society. 

          He has also stated that in July, 2013, he was threatened by M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. that if the amount so claimed on account of late payment of installments by the previous owner was not paid by him, the allotment will be cancelled. Thus, he deposited the demanded amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- under protest on 03.07.2013 to avoid cancellation of allotment vide receipt no. 3191 dated 03.07.2013. 

          He made a request for refund of amount deposited, but none of his emails were replied nor acknowledged.  He forwarded a copy of letter for waiver of interest payment, which was acknowledged and accepted by M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. confirming that no interest will be charged until digging and excavation work starts.  He finally made a request for invoking the arbitration clause which was not replied. 

          Legal notice of dated 21.07.2013 was served upon them.  Thus, he has prayed for quashing of illegal demand raised by         M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. ; refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- with 18% interest; compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- legal fees.

3.       No written statement was filed on behalf of OP-1 & 2.

4.       In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.   He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.

          In defence, Mr. K.N. Shukla has deposed on affidavit for himself and OP-2.  He has stated in his testimony that the unit was transferred in the name of the complainant pursuant to his request after complying with all the formalities of transfer and post-execution of all the requisite documentation.  At the time of transfer, the transferee i.e. the complainant declared and acknowledged that the remaining consideration and other charges including interest and penalties, if any shall be paid by him as per the payment schedule/plan as per clause 4 of the affidavit of transferee.  The complainant never protested against making the payment.  At the time of transfer, the terms and conditions were explained to the complainant. 

5.       We have heard father of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-1 and 2 that at the time of transfer, the complainant himself gave declaration and acknowledged that the remaining consideration including interest and penalties, if any, shall be paid by him as per the payment schedule.  She has further argued that there was no unfair or restrictive trade practice or any deficiency on the part of OP.

          On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant was compelled to make the payment.  He has further argued that the payment was made under protest. 

          To appreciate the arguments of father of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP, the evidence on record has to be perused.  Firstly, a look has to be made to the declaration given by the complainant.  If the affidavit of transferee “Mr. Amit Arora” is looked into, it is noticed that in Clause 4 of the affidavit, he has acknowledged that his predecessor have paid a sum of                   Rs. 23,49,977/- to the company on account of booking/housing.  He has further acknowledged that the remaining consideration and other charges (including interests and penalty, if any) for the housing unit shall be paid by him as per the applicable payment schedule/plan.  Thus, the fact remains that Shri Amit Arora, the complainant have undertaken to pay the balance amount, if any, including interests and penalties.  When he has undertaken to pay the balance amount on account of interests and penalties, he cannot say that he was not under obligation to make the payment.  Therefore, his plea that he has made the payment under protest cannot be accepted at all. 

          Further, from this clause, it is evident that the complainant have made the payment to the original allottee for a sum of Rs.23,49,977/-.  However, he has not disclosed the value of the flat for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Thus, the fact remains that when he has made the payment for a sum of Rs. 23,49,977/- to the original allottee, the value of the flat may be more than Rs. 23,49,977/-.  When the complainant has alleged to have made the payment of                    Rs. 23,49,977/- to the original allottee, the complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, his complaint also deserves to be dismissed on this score also.  Even, otherwise also, there has been no allegation in the complaint that there was any deficiency on the part of OP or there was any restrictive trade practice adopted by them.

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this Forum was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  There was no deficiency on the part of OP.  This complaint is simply a case for recovery of the amount for which the complainant would have approached the civil court instead of filing the complaint in the consumer forum.  Thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                          President