Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/231/2017

Sandeep Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DLF India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Goel, Adv.

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

 

                    In this complaint, the following prayer has been made :-

“A)          To direct Opposite Party to give physical possession of plot immediately and further be directed to withdraw illegal and excessive demands on account of

1. Clause I (b) :- EDC (illegal and arbitrarily increase of rate from Rs.1,641/- to Rs.1,670/- i.e. Rs.8,723/-),
2. Clause II :- other charges vide clause 8, (Opposite Parties have not provided proper justification and documents in support of the same. The excess, illegal and arbitrary demand under this clause be setaside),
3. Clause II :- Service tax @12.36 % has been illegally levied. (The clause II other charges vide clause 7 of the plot buyers agreement is payment qua taxes. It is not understood that how and in which manner and what rules/law, service tax @12.36% is levied on payment of taxes). The Opposite Parties be directed to produce rules/regulation, law in support of levying of service tax under this clause and further same is payable under the Plot Buyers Agreement. The illegal and arbitrary demand under this clause be set aside,
4. Clause III :- Electrical charges under clause 22 of the plot buyers agreement (the Opposite Parties have not provided complete details alongwith documents of levying of charges under this head alongwith its computation) and moreover, plot buyers agreement, does not contain condition on account of payment to be made by Complainant as demanded by Opposite Party under different heads of “clause III”, as such, demand raised under “clause III” is not in accordance with Plot Buyers Agreement  and same is liable to be set aside.

1. To pay Rs.4,87,655/- (8% interest on Rs.81,27,586/-, from May, 2011 till February, 2012), on account of delay ion signing plot buyers agreement from the date of payment of 95%.
2. To pay Rs.80,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Any other relief that this Hon’ble Forum may deem proper on the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed against the Opposite Parties, in the interest of justice.”

                   It is not in dispute that vide letter dated 01.12.2014, possession stood offered. Vide this complaint, the complainant has challenged some demands raised in the aforesaid letter. We are of the opinion that complaint having been filed beyond the period of two years is barred by limitation. Further the total price of the product, as mentioned against Clause VIII  in final statement of account as on 01.12.2014 appended with the aforesaid letter, is as Rs.1,09,76,076.02.

                   Besides as above, the complainant has also claimed an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation and Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses. The total amount claimed goes beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, which is upto Rs.1 crore. In the face of ratio of judgment passed by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA & 21 ORS. Vs. FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

                   In view of above, the complaint stands dismissed.

                  

                    Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.