Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1081/2018

MRS. HENA RAHEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ADEL LANDMARKS (INDIA) LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI PRABHA

13 Sep 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

 

Date of Hearing: 13.09.2018

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of decision:14.09.2018

 

 

Complaint No. 1081/2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Mrs. Hena Raheja,

R/o A-3/78, Pocket A-3,

Rohini, Sector-3

Delhi-110085                                                                 ….Complainant   

 

VERSUS

 

M/s Adel Landmark India Ltd.

(Formerly known as M/s Era Landmark India Ltd)                          

C-56/41, 5^th floor

•  

Noida-201301                                                                …Opposite Parties

 

 

HON’BLE  SH. O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (GENERAL)

 

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

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

 

 

Present:       Ms. Ravi Prabha, Counsel for the Complainant

                   None for the OPs

                  

PER:           ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (G)

JUDGEMENT

1.                 This complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) has been filed by Smt. Hena Raheja, resident of New Delhi, for short complainant, against M/s Adel Landmark (India) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OPs, alleging deficiency of service in not having delivered the possession of a three Bed Room apartment bearing number CSM/103/D-0801 in Block’D on 8^th floor plus servant quarter in the upcoming project known as ‘Cosmocity’ at Sector 103, Gurgaon, despite the agreed period having elapsed despite payment as per schedule having been made.
2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3.           One Sh. Rajesh Mehta had booked a residential flat with OPs in their upcoming project in February 2012 by paying the booking amount of Rs. 6.5 Lakhs, Mr. Mehta made further payment as indicated below as demanded by the OPs.

 

1. Rs. 6,50,000/- referred above towards Registration Amount.
2. Rs. 6,30,400/- vide Cheque No. 638453 duly acknowledged by Respondent, vide receipt No. 44692 dated 28.04.2012.
3. Rs. 3,69,555/- vide Cheque No. 305452 duly acknowledged by Respondent, vide receipt No. 50523 dated 26.10.2012.

 

4.           However Sh. Mehta later transferred his right in favour of Sh. Jawahar lal on 13.02.2013 which transfer was duly endorsed by the OPs in their records. Later Sh. Jawahar Lal also transferred his rights from the flat in favour of the complainant on 09.04.2013 and this transfer was also endorsed by the OPs.
5.           Later Apartment Buyer’ Agreement was executed between the complainant and the OPs on 21.06.2013 and in terms of the said agreement a specific Unit No. CSM/103/D-0801 in Block’D on 8^th floor, of 3BHK plus servant apartment Type, having an area of admeasuring 2098 sq. ft. at a total price of Rs. 79,65,388/-, including EDC and IDC charges Rs. 7,44,790/-, covered Car Parking security amount Rs. 1,04,900/- was allotted. In terms of the agreement the complainant has made further payment as demanded by the OPs from time to time. Possession was agreed to be handed over in 36 months with a grace period of six months which means by December 2016 the possession of the flat booked in favour of the complainant was to be delivered. However the complainant on their visit to the site in October 2017 came to know that there exists hardly any progress in the construction, which means there is no possibility of delivering the possession in the near future. As per the terms and conditions the OPs are under an obligation to pay to the complainant interest for the delayed period, which interest was never paid and thus the OPs have been deficient and exposed to unfair trade practice.
6.           In these circumstances this complaint has been filed for the redressal of her grievances praying for relief as under:

 

1. Direct the OP-1 to deliver the possession of the flat no. CSM/103/D-0801 to the complainant immediately and execute all the necessary and required documents in respect of the said flat in favour of complainant for which complainant is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of the sale consideration at the time of receiving the possession of said plot.
2. Direct the respondent to pay interest @ 18% per annum compounded quarterly on Rs. 39,48,196/- being the amount deposited by the complainant with the respondent from the respective date of payments made by the complainant till the actual date of handover of possession of the apartment complete in all respect by the respondent to the complainant.
3. Direct the respondent to pay Rs. 39,48,196/- being the amount deposited by the complainant with the respondent.
4. Direct the respondent to pay interest @ 18% per annum compounded quarterly on Rs. 39,48,196/- from the date of deposit.
5. Direct the respondent to refund transfer fee of Rs. 1,26,150/- from the date of deposit.
6. Pass an award of Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant on account of inaction and negligence on the part of the respondent as a result of the above acts of omission on the part of respondent.
7. Award cost of the present complaint in favour of the complainant and against the respondent.
8. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

                                                                             

7.           This matter was listed before us for admission hearing on 13.09.2018 when the ld. Counsel for the complainant appeared and advanced her arguments. We have perused the records and given a careful consideration to the subject matter.
8.           The ld. Counsel in the first instance was requested to satisfy as to how this Commission enjoys the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint when the total sale consideration and interest claimed either when the possession is sought for or refund is claimed put together would be more than Rs. One crore in which case the jurisdiction lies with the Hon’ble NCDRC having regard to the provisions contained under section 17(1)(a) of the Act. The said provision of the act posits as under:

 

Jurisdiction of the state commission:- subject to the other provisions of this Act, the state Commission shall have jurisdiction.

1. To entertain-

1. Complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed [exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crores] and
2. Appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State.

 

9.           The ld. Counsel however argued that since she has deposited only Rs. 39 Lakhs (approx) and since she is claiming this amount and interest, the value of goods would be less than Rs. One Crore in which case the jurisdiction of this Commission cannot be ousted. We cannot subscribe to this view.
10.  Three member Bench of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., as reported in I[2017] CPJ 1 (NC) have held as under:

 

In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.

 

11. Having analysed the provision of the Act and the legal position as settled we are of the considered view that we do not have pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint.
12. Accordingly we order return of the complaint to file it before the forum enjoying the jurisdiction therefore, granting liberty to the complainant to seek the exclusion of time for the purpose of limitation in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering works versus PSG Industrial Institute-(1995) 3 SCC583.
13. Ordered accordingly.
14. A copy of this order be forwarded to both the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.
15. File be consigned to record.

                       

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (GENERAL)                                                                                    MEMBER (JUDICIAL)