DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.479/2013
Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan Sharma
S/o Sh. O. P. Sharma
R/o H.No.76, Mahipal Pur,
New Delhi-110037 ….Complainant
Versus
M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
Registered Office:
R-13, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi-110048
Corporate Office:
1st Floor, Block-B, Vatika Towers,
Main Gulf Course Sector Road
Sector-54, Gurgaon
Haryana-122002 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 13.09.2013 Date of Order : 04.09.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
1. Brief facts of the case are that Vishnu Bhagwan Sharma booked a flat with the OP which is a construction company, engaged in the construction of residential project ‘Ferrous City’ in Sector-89, Faridabad. The complainant made a total payment of Rs.13,51,557/- to the OP as part payment on account of allotment of a flat. The complainant had duly signed the ‘Buyers Agreement’ and owing to denial of Housing Loan by LIC Housing the complainant could not make the payment of the balance amount towards the cost of the flat. Booking of the flat was cancelled for non-payment of the balance amount. The complainant requested the OP to refund his amount after applicable deduction under the applicable clause of ‘Buyers Agreement’ but the OP telephonically demanded that the complainant should surrender all original receipts, sign and submit an affidavit with blank spaces as a pre-requisite to any consideration of his fund request. The complainant was also told that refund shall be made through post dated cheque payable over two years period. Therefore, on the refusal of the OP to refund the said amount and making illegal demands of submitting an affidavit with blank spaces was not acceptable to the complainant, hence the consume complaint in question was filed.
2. OP in his written submissions stated that this Forum lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in question as the value of the flat alongwith the compensation being claimed by the complainant exceeds the pecuniary limit of this Forum. He further states that the value of the flat in question is Rs.19,76,800/- plus additional charges which includes Rs.1,50,000/- for covered car parking, Rs.75,000/- for open car parking, Rs.50,000/- for club membership etc. Thereafter the complainant in his complaint has prayed for Rs.11,38,337/- payment on account of refund of the principal amount due and Rs.1,10,500/- towards the cost of the legal notice, petition and towards physical and mental agony caused to the complainant. The complainant also seeks the OP should pay interest @ 24% p.a. on refund due i.e. Rs.1138337/- w.e.f. 09.03.2011 till the actual date of refund.
3. From the facts stated above it is clear that the value of the flat in question is more than Rs.20 lacs, hence the present complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. It has been subsequently reiterated in judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Azure Tree Township LLP Vs. Srishti Building No.343 Co-operating Housing Society Ltd. Therefore, the original complaint alongwith documents be returned to the complainant with liberty to file the same before the Forum of appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction. For the purpose of limitation, complainant will get the benefit of the period spent before this Forum.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.09.18
