Delhi

StateCommission

CC/442/2015

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S K.D.P. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Argument: 18.03.2016

Date of Decision: 07.04.2016

Complaint No.442/2015

 

 

In the matter of:

1. Amit Kumar Gupta,

S/o Sh’ri Shyam Lal Gupta,

R/o 81-C, LIF Flats, Rampura,

New Delhi-110034.

 

2. Ajay Kumar Jha,

S/o Sh. Jagnand Jha,

R/o D-36, Ayudh Vihar,

Dwarks, Delhi.

 

3. Anthony Anand Benjamin,

S/o P. Benjamin,

R/o 233, Sector-19,

Pocket-I, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075

 

4. Atul Kumar,

S/o Vikas Babu,

R/o Flat No.9127,

Block-9, Prestige Shantiniketan,

Sadarmangala, Whitefield,

Benglore, Karnataka-560066.

 

5. Badal Kumar Choudhary,

S/o Sh. Bijay Kumar Choudhary,

R/o 94A, GGI, Vikaspuri,

New Delhi-110018.

 

6. Dilmohan Srivastava,

S/o Sh. H.P. Srivastava,

R/o SH-183, Shastri Nagar,

Ghaziabad, UP.

 

7. Divyajot Singh,

S/o Ranjeet Singh,

R/o 62-B, Pocket-3, Mayur Vihar,

Phase-I, Delhi-110091.

 

8. Gomathi Anil,

W/o Sh. D. Anil Kumar,

R/o 557, Lodhi Road Complex,

Near Sai Mandir, Delhi.

 

9. Joydeep Lahiri,

S/o Nitish Lahiri,

R/o Basava Residency, Arakere,

Bannerghatta Road,

•  

 

10. Mukesh Aggarwal

S/o Ramavtar Aggarwal,

R/o 8/190, F/Floor,

DDA Flats, Madangir,

New Delhi-110062.

 

11. Narendra Prasad,

S/o Lt. Sh. Bhubaneshwar Prasad,

R/o E-144, 1^st Floor, Pandav Nagar,

Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-91.

 

12. Prabhakar Vardhan,

S/o Shri Sobaran Lal Dohare,

R/o D-503, KDP Grand Savanna,

Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, UP.

 

13. Prem Kumar Singh,

S/o Sh. Chandra Bhan Singh,

R/o D-II, 1521, Sanjay Colony,

Sector-23, Faridabad.

 

14. Sudesh Kumar Chauhan,

S/o Sh. Sukhlal Singh,

R/o 36, Chaudhary Charan Singh Enclave,

Near Rdhey Shyam Park,

Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.

 

15. Sunil Kumar Prasad,

S/o Sh. Jagannath Prasad,

R/o Flat No.108, L-Block,

KDP Grand Savanna, Raj Nagar Extn.,

Ghaziabad, UP.

 

16. Tarun Garg,

S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg,

R/o K-1, 159, Shastri Nagar,

Meerut, UP.

 

17. Vinay Verma,

S/o Shri Vinod Kumar,

R/o 655, Tower 14,

River Heights, Raj Nagar Extn.,

Ghaziabad, UP.                                                   ….......Complainants

 

Versus

M/s. K.D.P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Director,

UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan, K.G. Marg,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

Also at:

 

M/s. K.D.P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Director

D-247/29, Sector-63,

Noida-201301.

 

Also at:

 

M/s. K.D.P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director,

A-213, Shanti Gopal Chambers,

2^nd Floor, Vikas Marg,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.                                                                      ….....Opp. Party

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The present complaint has been filed by 17 persons on the averments that they are a group of allottees/buyers of flats developed OP.  Even though 90% of monetary consideration has been made by all the complainants in time, still no proper assurance has been made by the OP for handing over respective flats of the buyers. Inaction on the part of OP clearly shows the malafidi intension with regard to handing over the possession of the flats. The act on the part of OP is against business ethics and amounts to cheat, fraud, commission of offence and unfair trade practice.  The complainants have suffered great mental pain, agony, harassment as well as financial losses. Now, the complainants have prayed direction to OP to handover the possession of the flats, compensate complainants @24% from original date of possession till date, direction OP to compensate the complainants to the tune of Rs.three lacs for causing harassment, mental pain, agony depression, frustration. They have also prayed to compensate financial loss caused in the form of rental expenses accrued on delay possession.

 

2. Notice was issued to OP which has put in appearance on 16.03.2016.  They prayed for copy of complaint to enable them to file written version.  However, they orally pointed out that case is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

3. We have heard the above aspect. Complainants have not valued the complaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction in the body of complaint. They cleverly concealed the amount for which each flat was booked.  Anyhow, the copy of application for allotment by complainant-1 Amit Kumar Gupta shows that it was booked for Rs,.20,68,750/-.  Copy of said application is at page-33.  Similar is writ position of remaining complainants. Copy of receipt of complainant-2 Ajay Kumar Jha placed at page-84 to 87 shows receipt of Rs.20 lacs, Rs,4,49,366, Rs.3,91,500/-, Rs. 21,000/-. Sum total of which comes to around Rs.28 lacs

 

4. If the value of the flats of all the complainants is added, the same would cross Rs.four crore and would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

5. Counsel for complainants submitted that value of flat is immaterial as it is not suit for specific for performance. It is for deficiency of service which cannot be valued.  We fail to persuade ourselves with with arguments. Since complainants have claimed possession of the flats, they have to value the complaint at the value of the flat. It has been held by National Commission in Revision Petition No.1348/14 titled as TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Mathur total cost of the flat is to be considered for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

6. The counsel for complainants submitted that he would move an application for giving up prayer for possession. But he has not done so till date.  It has been held by National Commission in FA No.887/13 titled as M/s Omaxe Ltd. Vs, Iqabal Begum & Anr. decided on 16.05.2014 that pecuniary jurisdiction is to be decided in accordance with prayer made in the complaint. In para 6 it was held that respondents therein/complainant had not filed any application for withdrawal of relief of Rs.15,000/- per day as compensation.  So the complaint was found to be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission. 

 

7. As a result of above discussion, we find that present complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

8. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

9. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                                  (S. C. Jain)   

      Member

​