Haryana

StateCommission

CC/548/2017

DR. PROMODE KANT AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.D.GUPTA

27 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No: 548 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution:           06.09.2017

                                                Date of Decision:             27.09.2017

 

 

 

1.      Dr. Promode Kant son of Shri Janardan Sharma, aged about 62 years.

2.      Mrs. Sangeeta Kant wife of Dr. Promode Kant, aged about 57 years.

3.      Ms. Medha Kant, daughter of Dr. Promode Kant, aged about 29 years.

 

          All residents of W3-123, Wellington Estate, DLF, Phase V, Sector 53, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.

                                      Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Godrej Properties Limited through its Managing Director, Godrej-I, 5^th Floor, Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra.

 

2.      M/s Godrej Properties Private Limited through its Branch Head/Branch Manager, 3^rd Floor, U.M House, Tower A, Plot No.35, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

3.      The Managing Director, M/s Godrej Properties Private Limited, Godrej-I, 5^th Floor, Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra.

                             Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                      

         

Argued by:          Shri R.D. Gupta, Advocate for complainants.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          Dr. Promode Kant, his wife Mrs. Sangeeta Kant and daughter Medha Kant-complainants have filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that on December 11^th, 2012 they booked apartment No.J-1805, 17^th Floor, Tower J, Godrej Summit, Sector 104, Gurgaon with Godrej Properties Private Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘builder’).  The price of the apartment was Rs.1,44,62,240/-.  The complainant paid Rs.51,69,296/- to the builder.  On December 22^nd, 2015 the complainant received Buyer’s Agreement. The complainants raised some queries about the terms and conditions of the buyers agreement.  The builder cancelled the allotment of complainants.  The builder forfeited amount of Rs.43,65,888/- and refunded Rs.8,03,408/- to the complainants.   

2.      After hearing learned counsel for the complainants and perusing the record over the file, the question arises for consideration is as to whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not?

3.      By filing the present complaint, the complainant has sought refund of deposited amount, that is, Rs.43,65,888/- alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of respective deposits till its realization; Rs.3,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.1,00,000/- litigation expenses.  By adding the total value of the flat, that is, Rs.1,44,62,240/-, plus Rs.16,37,208/-, that is, interest plus Rs.4,00,000/-, that is, deficiency in service and litigation expenses, the amount comes to Rs.1,64,99,448/-, which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.1 crore of this Commission.

4.      In First Appeal No.940 of 2016, Satyabati Panda Vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited and Others decided on November 15^th, 2016 by a bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President and Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the short ground that since the total amount paid by the complainant to the Developer was only a sum of Rs.12,32,024/- and the same being less than Rs.20,00,000/-, it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The findings of the Commission were not accepted by the Hon’ble National Commission by holding in paragraph No.2 of the order as under:-

          “2.    Since admittedly, the price of the flat was Rs.19,53,275/- and the compensation claimed in the complaint was Rs.54,38,528/-, which is more than Rs.20,00,000/- and less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-, in view of the decision of a Larger Bench of this Commission dated October 07^th, 2016 passed in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, the impugned decision cannot be sustained.”

5.      In First Appeal No.1194 of 2016, Santosh Arya Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited decided on October 07^th, 2016 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the short ground that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the total compensation claimed by the complainant works out to Rs.6,50,875/- and it being less than Rs.20,00,000/-, only the District Forum had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The Hon’ble National Commission set aside the findings of the State Commission by holding as under:-

          “4.    That being the legal position, in the present case, the value of the flat in question by itself being Rs.1,85,01,285/-, and even ignoring the amount of compensation, neither the State Commission nor the District Forum, as held by the State Commission, will have the jurisdiction and this Commission alone will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint filed by the Appellant.”

 

6.      In Parikshit Parashar Vs. M/s Universal Buildwell Private Limited and Others, decided on October 07^th, 2016 presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President, National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi, following issues dated August 11^th, 2016 interalia were referred by a Single Member Bench of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission to the Larger Bench:-

(i)      In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, or the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.

(ii)      Whether the interest claimed on such value by way of compensation or otherwise, is to be taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular consumer forum. 

(iii)     Whether “the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed” is to be taken as per the original value of such goods, or service at the time of purchase of such goods or hiring or availing of such service, or such value is to be taken at the time of filing the claim, in question.

(iv)    XXXXXX

(v)               XXXXXX

(vi)     XXXXXX 

          (vii)    XXXXXX.

 

7.      While answering Issue No.(i) referred to above, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held that if the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, the National Consumer Commission alone would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  By referring the instance that a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before the National Consumer Commission because value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.

8.      Under Issue No.(ii), it was held that the amount of interest which can be paid as compensation, must necessarily be taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. 

9.      With regard to Issue No.(iii), it was held that if the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer is taken as the value of the goods or services in that case, the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.

10.    From the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements in the cases Satyabati Panda, Santosh Arya and Parikshit Parashar (supra), this Commission holds that the present complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission because value of the flat in question is itself Rs.1,44,62,240/-. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. 

 

 

Pronounced 27.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK