ORAL

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                    COMPLAINT NO. 514 OF 2017

Ms Mriganka Prahladka

House No.35

Sector 15A, Noida.

                                                                                          ...Complainant

                                                           Vs.

01.M/s Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd.

     Tech Boulevard, Central Block

     Plot No. 6, Sector 127

     Noida  201301, Uttar Pradesh

02.Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd.

      Tech Houlevard, Central Block

      Plot No. 6, Sector 127

      Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh

                                                                                      ...Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. MAHESH CHAND, MEMBER

For the Complainant           :    Sri Sudeep Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party        :                     

Dated :  10-09-2018

                                                  JUDGMENT

       MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

            Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the complainant appeared.

Heard learned Counsel for the complainant and perused complaint.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the complainant that the valuation of complaint is within pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The complainant has not prayed any relief in respect of flat. The relief claimed is compensation for delay in delivery of possession of flat. As such the cost of flat shall not be included in the valuation of complaint.

We have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the complainant.

In paragraph IV of complaint it has been specifically averred as follows:-

“Accordingly, an apartment bearing no. 1901, Tower No. 18 – Floor – Nineteen (179.77 Sq.Mtr) in the project “Lotus Panache, Noida,

:2:

as taken by the complainant under re-allotment for the total sale consideration of Rs.93,03,400/-. As directed by the opposite parties an agreement to sell dated 23-03-2013 for the transfer of the said allotment of still under development flat was executed between the erstwhile allottee(s) and the complainant. Needless to say that the payments were to be made on the basis of completion linked plan. A copy of Apartment buyer Agreement in name of the erstwhile allottee(s) alongwith payment receipts are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure 3 colly.”

The reliefs claimed in the complaint are reproduced below:-

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Consumer Forum may graciously be pleased to:

1. Direct the opposite parties to jointly and/or severally pay compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for the period there was delay in offering possession of the flat in the manner, quality with amenities and facilities as agreed, and

1. Direct the opposite parties to pay interest @ 18% per annum for the entire amount paid by the complainant till the date the filing of this complaint, and 
2. Direct the opposite parties to pay pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum for the entire amount paid by the complainant, till the date of payment of interest by the opposite parties to the complainant, and
3. Direct the opposite parties to complete the flat in all respect with all amenities and facilities, with good quality of workmanship and material within a time frame as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble court, and
4. Award cost of the present proceedings including fees of the counsel which has been charged by the counsel at Rs.1,25,000/-, and
5. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble forum may deem fit and proper in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties”

In the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others V/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016(4) CPR 83 NC the Hon’ble

:3:

National Commission has specifically held that the valuation of complaint shall be assessed on the basis of value of service availed and compensation claimed. In relief A of prayer clause of complaint compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the period there was delay in offering of possession of the flat in the manner, quality with amenities and facilities as agreed has been prayed. This relief claimed in complaint clearly shows that this compensation has been prayed by complainant for the alleged deficiency in service promised by opposite parties and value of service promised is the agreed price of flat.

Thus, the valuation of service promised cannot be excluded from the valuation of complaint in view of proposition laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in above Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case.

In view of discussion made above as well as proposition laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in above case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla V/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the valuation of present complaint goes above one crore which is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission. As such the complaint is returned to complainant with liberty to file it before Hon’ble National Commission or other competent court.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

                                                                ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

                                                                    ( MAHESH CHAND )

                                                                                             MEMBER

          Pnt.