Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/158/2015

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amitabh Suri, Adv.

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint No.	:	158 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	29.07.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.08.2015

 

 

1.  Sh. Rajesh Kumar Goyal son of Late Sh. Kundal Lal, and,

2. Smt. Anjana wife of Sh. Rajesh Goyal resident of House No.831, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

….Complainants.

Versus

1. M/s DLF India Ltd., 1-E Jhandewalan Extension Naaz Cinema Complex, New Delhi through its Directors, Partners, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director.
2. M/s DLF India Ltd., Chandigarh Technology Park, Plot No.2, Tower D, Ground Floor, Chandigarh through its Directors, Partners, Chief Executive and Managing Director.
3. M/s DLF India Ltd., Site Address: Hyde Park Estate, New Chandigarh (Mullanpur), Punjab, through its Directors, Partners, Chief Executive and Managing Director.

            ….Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

               

Argued by:

Sh. Amitabh Suri, Advocate for the complainants.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            The facts, in brief, are that the complainants, in order to own a large house and to shift therein from the smaller one, where they were residing, applied for an independent house measuring 350 sq. yards with the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the Opposite Parties allotted Plot No.HPE R1/F-1106, measuring 292.64 square meters, with down payment plan, to the complainants, who paid Rs.12 Lac as booking amount vide cheque No.278936 dated 28.3.2011. It was further stated that thereafter, the complainants requested the Opposite Parties several times to execute the Agreement, but they were told that it would be made on making the additional payment of Rs.69,31,655.11 as the plan opted was down payment plan. It was further stated that the complainants made further payments of Rs.34,21,655.11 and 35,10,000/- on 11.5.2011 and 13.5.2011 respectively,  and thus, made total payment of Rs.81,31,655.11 till the date of filing of the complaint. It was further stated that the early payment discounts of Rs.4,125/-  and Rs.2,116/- had also been credited in the account of the complainants on 11.5.2011 and 15.5.2015 respectively. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties executed the Agreement on 05.03.2012 i.e. almost after one year, stating the total sale consideration as Rs.89,24,934.72Ps inclusive of all what was exhibit in the detailed terms and conditions    .

2.         It was further stated that the complainants had already made 95% payment to the Opposite Parties, at least 10-11 months earlier as per their demand/schedule of payment without any delay. It was further stated that the complainants also took loan from HDFC Bank, in order to make timely payments vide sanction letter dated 9.5.2011. It was further stated that thereafter, the complainants made payment of Rs.44,326/- to the Opposite Parties on 26.10.2013 as demanded by them. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties informed that there was some change in the layout plan of the site and forced the complainants to take Plot No.R-1-F-702 on some other site or take refund of paid up amount without interest. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also told that in case they, agreed to the said                    change of plot, they would hand over possession within two months. It was further stated that having no alternative, the complainants accepted the said plot vide letter dated 04.03.2013.  It was further stated that there was huge high tension wire in front of the said plot, which was assured to be removed before possession but it was not acceptable to the complainants. It was further stated that left with no other choice, on the assurance and persuasions of the Opposite Parties, the complainants agreed to purchase plot in Hyde Park Estate, New Chandigarh.

3.         It was further stated that, as such, the possession/delivery of the subsequently allotted plot after providing all the amenities was supposed to be handed over on or before 30.03.2013.  It was further stated that as per clause 31 of the Agreement, in case of delay in giving possession, the complainants were entitled to compensation of Rs.50/- per square meter per month, which came to be Rs.4,09,696/- till 31.07.2015. It was further stated that as per the Agreement, the site infrastructure was to be as per the norms and standards. It was further stated that possession of the plot was to be handed over within the stipulated time, which was the essence of the Agreement but till date the Opposite Parties did not deliver possession of the plot of the complainants. It was further stated that had the Opposite Parties given possession, on time, to the complainants, then they would have fetched rental income from their existing house to the tune of
Rs.75,000/- approx. monthly and the burden of EMI of loan would have reduced. 

4.         It was further stated that instead of taking necessary action, on various requests made by the complainants for possession, and for compensation, which was agreed to between the parties and on giving legal notice dated 24.04.2015, the Opposite Parties did not reply. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to not only deficiency, in rendering service, but also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

5.         When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund Rs.89,24,934.72Ps alongwith interest @27% per annum (as per delay payment clause in the Agreement)  till realization; pay interest to the tune of Rs.24,69,189/- paid to their Banker i.e. HDFC on loan amount taken against the plot, alongwith interest @24% per annum; Rs.14,632/- per month for delay from 30.03.2013 till the date of making refund of the whole amount, calculated as Rs.4,09,696/- up till 31.7.2015 for 28 months + interest @24% as delay compensation from 30.04.2013; Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and  physical harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation charges & Counsel fees.

6.         We have heard the Counsel for the complainants, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

7.         The core question, which arises for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint or not.  Sections 17(a)(i) and 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which deal with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“17.  Jurisdiction of the State Commission. — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a)  to entertain—

(i)   complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and

21.   Jurisdiction of the National Commission. — Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a)  to entertain—

(i)   complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore; and

(ii)  appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and

 (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any con­sumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” 

Thus, Section 17(1)(a) provides that where value of the goods and claim exceeds Rs.20 Lakh but does not exceed Rupees One Crore, complaint can be filed before the State Commission.  By virtue of Section 21(a), the National Commission is vested with the original jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, exceeds Rupees One Crore.  In the instant complaint, the complainants primarily sought refund of the entire amount of Rs.89,24,934.72Ps, which they statedly paid to the Opposite Parties against the sale consideration of the plot, in question, alongwith interest @27% per annum. Apart from refund of the aforesaid amount, the complainants also claimed the amount of Rs.24,69,189/-, which they paid as interest to their Banker i.e. HDFC on loan taken against the plot, in question, alongwith interest @24% per annum. They (complainants) also claimed an amount of Rs.4,09,696/- calculated @Rs.14,632/- per month for the period from 30.03.2013 up-till 31.07.2015, including interest @24% for delay in compensation, due to be paid from 30.04.2013. The complainants also claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, which they suffered on account of deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Besides this, the complainants also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation charges and Counsel fee.

8.         During the course of arguments, when a query was raised by the Bench, to the Counsel for the complainants, in respect of calculation with regard to the second relief claimed by the complainants as to how much interest they (complainants) had paid to their Banker on the loan amount, the Counsel made a statement dated 31.07.2015, which is reproduced hereunder:-

“Statement of Sh. Amitabh Suri, Advocate for the complainants.

      As per the Calculation sheet submitted today, the complainants paid a  sum of Rs.24,69,189/- as interest to the HDFC and other financial institutions from which the complainants borrowed loan for financing the unit in question. It is further stated that payment of the amount of interest, aforesaid, by them (complainants) has also been claimed as one of the reliefs in the complaint. The calculation sheet be taken on record as Annexure ‘X’.”

9.         Thus, the sum total of the all the reliefs claimed by the complainants, in their complaint, viz. Rs.89,24,934.72Ps (paid towards price of the plot) + Rs.24,69,189.00 (paid as interest on loan amount) + Rs.4,09,696.00 (on account of delayed compensation) + Rs.5,00,000/- (on account of compensation for mental agony and physical harassment), + Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses, came to be Rs.1,24,03,819.72, which exceeds the upper pecuniary limit of Rs.1 Crore of this Commission. In our opinion, the complaint deserves to be returned to the complainants, for filing the same, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which has the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same (complaint).

10.       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, in original, is ordered to be returned to the complainants, alongwith the documents, annexed therewith, after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, for presentation, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi having pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same.

11.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced.

August  3,  2015.

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

Ad