Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/171

Gurdish Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Apna Punjab Homes Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Anupam Bhanot

01 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 171 dated 21.04.2022.                                                        Date of decision: 01.11.2022. 

Gurdish Singh Mangat son of Kripal Singh aged around 68 years Permanent Address Village Mahal Ghumana, Junewal, Ludhiana, Punjab.

                                                Versus

1. M/S. Apna Punjab Homes  Limited, registered office Canal Road, Barewal, Ludhiana,141012 through its Managing Director Email:
2. Paramjeet Kaur, Additional Director, M/S. Apna Punjab Homes  Limited, registered office Canal Road, Barewal, Ludhiana
3. Tejinder Pal Singh, Additional Director, M/S. Apna Punjab Homes  Limited, registered office Canal Road, Barewal, Ludhiana,141001
4. Swapneet Kaur, Director, M/S. Apna Punjab Homes  Limited, registered office Canal Road, Barewal, Ludhiana
5. Sukhmander Rakhra, Director, M/S. Apna Punjab Homes  Limited, registered office Canal Road, Barewal, Ludhiana
6. S.L. Arora, Director M/S. Apna Punjab Homes  Limited, registered office Canal Road, Barewal, Ludhiana, 141012.                                                                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Anupam Bhanot, Advocate

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                The instant complaint has been filed against M/s. Apna Punjab Homes Limited and others on the allegations that the complainant agreed to buy an apartment/suite No.606 having carpet area of 1151 sq. feet and super area of 1625 sq. feet from the OPs. The complainant, in all, paid a sum of Rs.27,37,912/- to the OPs. An agreement dated 03.03.2006 was signed between the parties. However, despite lapse of so many years, the possession of apartment has not been delivered to the complainant nor the amount paid by the complainant towards the cost of the apartment has been refunded. The complainant seeks refund of Rs.27,37,912/- along with compensation for delay of Rs.73,92,362/-, compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for mental agony and pain as well as Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. In all, the complainant has prayed for a payment of Rs.1,21,85,274/-.

2.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant on the point of maintainability of the complaint with this Commission with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction involved.

3.                It is well settled that this Commission has a pecuniary jurisdiction of up to Rs.50 Lacs whereas in the instant complaint, the complainant has sought a relief of Rs.1,21,85,274/-. The counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 19.01.2021 passed in complaint No.63 of 2020 title as Gurpreet Kaur Vs M/s. Chandigarh Oversas Private Limited and others. We have gone through the cited case whereby the complainant had sought refund of Rs.24,25,000/- paid as cost of the flat along with compensation of Rs.32,25,000/- @ Rs.1000/- per day from 01.04.2011 to 01.02.2020. The complainant had also claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.50,000/- on account of litigation expenses. In the cited case, the complaint was filed with the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh as the amount involved was more than Rs.20 Lacs. However, on the basis of the cited case, the present case cannot be entertained as the relief claimed in the complaint is more than Rs.50 Lacs which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and the instant complaint is required to be filed before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh.

4.                Resultantly, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant with liberty to file the same with the appropriate authority having necessary pecuniary jurisdiction. It is further observed that the period during which the complaint remained pending with this Commission will be excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Copies of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules. The judicial papers be separated and consigned to record room but after registering the same.

                              (Jaswinder Singh)                           (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Gurdish Singh V M/s. Apna Punjab Homes                             CC/22/171

Present:       Sh. Anupam Bhanot, Advocate for the complainant.

                    Heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant with liberty to file the same with the appropriate authority having necessary pecuniary jurisdiction. It is further observed that the period during which the complaint remained pending with this Commission will be excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Copies of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules. The judicial papers be separated and consigned to record room but after registering the same.

(Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.11.2022.

Gobind Ram