Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1187/2016

VIPIN BADHWAR & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S CHOWDHARY PROPERTIES - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV BHATIA

22 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments: 22.12.2016

Date of Decision: 03.01.2017

Complaint No. 1187/2016

 

In the matter of:

1. Sh. Vipin Badhwar,

R/o H.No.A-1/4, Satyawati Colony,

Ground  Floor,

Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,

Delhi-110052.

 

Also at:

H.No.341/33, Bagh Kare Khan

New Delhi-110007.      

 

   2. Mrs. Shashi Vidhani,

W/o Sh. Brij Mohan Vidhani,

R/o H.No. 24-B, DDA Flats,

Mansarovar Park, Shahdara,

Delhi-110032.                                                                             …..........Complainants

 

Versus

 

1. M/s. Chowdhary Properties,

Regd. Office at 10121 & 10129,

East Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110032.

 

2. Sh. Rajeev Chauhan,

S/o Sh. Anoop Singh Chouhan,

r/o 21, Sharda Niketan,

New Delhi-110034.

 

3. Smt. Asha Rani Chouhan,

W/o Sh. Anoop Singh Chauhan,

R/o 21, Sharda Niketan,

New Delhi-110034.                                                                  ….....Opp. Parties

         

 

 

Complaint No. 1248/2016

 

In the matter of:

Laxmi Devi,

W/o Sh. Mohan Lal,

R/o H.No. 4104, 1^st Floor,

Gali No.3, Jagjiwan Niwas,

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110006.                                                                       ................Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s. Chowdhary Properties,

Regd. Office at 10121 & 10129,

East Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110032.

 

2. Sh. Rajeev Chauhan,

S/o Sh. Anoop Singh Chouhan,

R/o 21, Sharda Niketan,

New Delhi-110034.                                                                         .....Opp. Parties Parties

 

Complaint No. 1249/2016

In the matter of:

Sh. Ishwar Ram (since deceased)

Through LR/Beneficiary

Sh. Mohan Lal,

R/o H.No. 4104, Gali No.3,

Jagjivan Niwas,

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi                                                                                          …..........Complainant

 

Versus

1. M/s. Chowdhary Properties,

Regd. Office at 10121 & 10129,

East Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110032.

 

2. Sh. Rajeev Chauhan,

S/o Sh. Anoop Singh Chouhan,

R/o 21, Sharda Niketan,

New Delhi-110034.                                                                 ….....Opp. Parties

 

 

Complaint No. 1250/2016

 

In the matter of:

Smt. Shashi Khanna,

W/o Sh. K.K. Khanna,

R/o H.No. 5A-177,

W.E.A. Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005.                                                                          …..........Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s. Chowdhary Properties,

Regd. Office at 10121 & 10129,

East Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110032.

 

2. Sh. Rajeev Chauhan,

S/o Sh. Anoop Singh Chouhan,

r/o 21, Sharda Niketan,

New Delhi-110034.

 

3. Smt. Asha Rani Chouhan,

W/o Sh. Anoop Singh Chauhan,

R/o 21, Sharda Niketan,

New Delhi-110034.                                                                ….....Opp. Parties

 

 

                                                      

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. By this common order I shall be deciding four complaints bearing No.C-1187/2016, C-1248/2016, C-1249/2016 & C-1250/2016 as they involve same questions.

 

2. Complaints are still at the stage of admission. In Complaint Case No.1187/16 according to complaint, the booking was done in 1987 for plot, measuring 200 sq.yds. @ Rs.280/- per sq. yds, the complainant paid Rs.46,200/- vide two cheques.  The balance payment was to be made in manner mentioned in para-2 (vi) of the complaint.  OP-1 demanded Rs.11,200/- which was paid by two bankers cheques for Rs.5600/- each.  After five months of second instalment, OP-1 demanded next instalment of Rs.3000/- which was paid by cheque.  OP-1 issued reminder dated 25.06.1990 asking the complainant to pay Rs.15,200/-.  OP-1 again issued letter dated 24.07.1990 making final demand.  On 12.09.1991 OP-2 sent registered AD communication informing that due to some difficulty with Ghaziabad Development Authority/Municipal Board, peripheral services supposed to be provided by government authority could not be provided by them.  So, OP-1 would provide the same and cost thereof would be recovered from plot owners.  Complainant paid Rs.15,000/- and Rs.11,961/- vide receipts dated 25.11.1991, Rs.7600/- vide bankers cheque dated 06.10.1991. On 12.04.1993 OP-2 invited complainant for registration of plot in Ganga Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP and informed that value of plot has been fixed @ Rs.600/- per sq. yds, complainant would have to pay stamp duty @14.5% on circle rate and pro-rata share for external development charges @Rs. 27.50p per sq. yds.  In remaining cases facts are almost similar.

 

3. Complainant got FIR No.494/08 registered against OP-2.  OP-2 was arrested on 18.11.2008.  OP given an undertaking for execution of plot before the Ld. ASJ in application for bail.  OP-2 filed Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad to secure bail.  Believing the undertaking by OP-3, complainant did not oppose the application for bail. Instead of executing sale deed, OP-2 sent demand letter dated 12.12.2009 demanding Rs.566.45 per sq. yds. as development charges. 

 

4. The complainant has valued the complaint for purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs. 70 Lacs.  They have prayed for directions to the Ops to pay Rs.70 lacs which is current fair market price of the plot, interest @24% per annum on current market price of the plot, interest @18% per annum on account of delayed possession, Rs.5 lacs as compensation for financial losses, mental torture, agony, harassment and physical pain, cost of litigation.

 

5. I asked the counsel for complainant as to how he can value the complaint at market value of the land.  He relied upon the decision of National Commission in Consumer Case No.427/14 titled Satish Kumar Pandey Vs. Unitech Ltd. In para-16 National Commission found the complaint to be maintainable before it on the basis of current market value of the apartment.  He also relied upon the decision of State Commission, Chandigarh in CC No. 3/12 titled as Rahul Joshi Vs. Unitech Ltd. decided on 19.08.2013 in which what was held is that total value of the goods and compensation or value of services and compensation is to be considered for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

6. The above decisions cannot be followed in view of latest decision of three member bench of National Commission in CC No.97/16 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 7^th October, 2016.  At page-11 of the judgement while deciding issue number three, it has been observed that on deeper consideration, the Commission was of the view that price of the goods or services as the case may be, agreed to be paid by consumer would be relevant for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.  If market price of the goods or services as the case may be, on the date of institution of complaint is to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction, the market price being dynamic and ever fluctuating, this would create an unending uncertainty with respect to consumer forum before which the complaint is to be instituted.

 

7. The counsel for complainant also filed copy of judgement by Upper Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.6, Ghaziabad in Suit No.948/11 titled as Vipin Badhwar Vs. Chowdhary Properties decided on 04.11.2016 vide which the defendants were directed to execute sale deed, in suit for specific performance. The same is placed in file of CC No.1187/2016.  The same has no relevance in the present case.
8. In view of the above discussion, the complains are directed to be returned for presentation to District Forum as the value of the plot at the time of booking was Rs.56,000/- only.

 

9. Copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost.

 

10. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

​