BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 657 of 2014
Date of institution: 11.11.2014
Date of Decision: 19.08.2015
1. Arun Nag son of Shiv Pal Nag.
2. Smt. Raj Lata wife of Arun Nag
Both residents of House No.2613 (Top Floor), Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.
……..Complainants
Versus
1. M/s. Mount View Hi Tech. Township Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office at Sector 125, Shivalik Avenue, Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Director Ashok Kumar Mittal son of Ram Kumar, resident of House No.536, Sector 16, Panchkula.
2. M/s. Mount View Hi Tech Township Pvt. Ltd., Shivalik Avenue, Sector 125, Jandpur Road, Greater Mohali through its Director.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ARGUMENTS HEARD AND DECIDED BY
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri S.K. Agnihotri, counsel for the complainants.
Shri Amit Kohar, counsel for the OPs.
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member)
ORDER
The complainants filed the present amended complaint pleading that complainants are the Consumers of the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) as they have booked a flat in Sector 125, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar. The OPs floated a scheme offering the allotment of flats in Sector 125 of Shivalik Enclave Kharar. It was mentioned by the OPs that the partial construction of the flats have been made and further construction is in full swing and likely to be completed in due course of time. The complainants approached the OPs for allotment of flats. On 05.12.2012 an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the OPs for allotment of Flat No.202 (First Floor) Block B at village Jhungia, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) for total consideration of Rs.42,75,000/-. As per agreement, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as earnest money towards the above said flat and balance amount of Rs.30,75,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, all the wooden work like cup boards, doors, windows alongwith modular kitchen, supply of electricity and water etc. were to be completed/provided by the OPs before 05.12.2013. As per agreement the date of completion and execution of the sale deed was fixed on 04.12.2013. Since the complainants are residing in rented accommodation at Chandigarh by paying rent of Rs.15,000/- per month, they were very anxious to own the flat in December, 2013 but their dream to own a house could not be fulfilled as the Ops have failed to complete the construction work of the flat. The OPs did not even got electricity connection and pucca sewerage till the filing of this complaint. The complainants suffered financial loss, mental tension and harassment due to the act and conduct of the OPs which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainants have to pay rent of Rs.1,50,000/- @ Rs.15,000/- per month from January, 2014 to October, 2014 i.e. the month of filing of this complaint.
Lastly the complainants prayed to this Forum to direct the OPs to complete the construction work within the stipulated period granted by this Forum and to start the process of electricity connection and pucca sewerage and any order or direction which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. After service of notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed reply to the amended complaint taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law; it is not a consumer dispute; complaint is manifestly outside the purview of the said Act; complaint is pre-mature, frivolous, vexatious, not verified in accordance with law; not approached this Forum with clean hands; want of necessary parties; claim made by the complainants is highly inflated, irrational and not based on any judicial principle; complaint is abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the OPs. Complaint involves complicated questions and facts which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but before the civil court. Complainants have no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings.
The OPs had already offered possession to the complainants vide registered letters dated 13.02.2015 and 11.03.2015 subject to payment of Rs.30,75,000/- as balance sale consideration but they have failed to make the payment of balance sale consideration. The OPs have also offered possession to the counsel for the complainants before this Forum on 25.03.2015 and 31.03.2015 subject to payment of Rs.30,75,000/- as balance sale consideration. As such the present complaint has become infructuous. This Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction as the complainants are seeking possession of the flat the value of which as per agreement is Rs.42,75,000/- which is more than the limited prescribed in the Act. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainants have concealed the fact that at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 05.12.2012, they were well aware of the fact that the land upon which the said property/flat is constructed was sold to OP No.1 by M/s. Shiwalik Site Planners Pvt. Ltd. vide sale deed dated 01.03.2011 registered on 03.03.2011. As per the said sale deed, certain terms and conditions were imposed on OP No.1 and his subsequent purchasers. It was further provided that the responsibility of providing basic amenities etc. shall be that of M/s. Shiwalik Site Planners Pvt. Ltd. and further the maintenance charges shall also be deposited with M/s. Shiwalik Site Planners Pvt. Ltd. by the complainants as per terms and conditions of the aforesaid sale deed. Thus, M/s. Shiwalik Site Planners Pvt. Ltd. was responsible for providing electricity connection which was a necessary party and due to its non pleadment by the complainants; no liability can be fastened upon the OPs.
On merits also, the Ops denied all the allegations made against them by the complainants and prayed for dismissal of this complaint with costs.
3. The complainants placed on record affidavit Exb.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Exb.C-1 to C-8.
4. The OPs placed on record affidavit of Ashok Kumar Mittal Exb.OP-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Exb.OP-1 to OP-5
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
6. In the present complaint, OPs took preliminary objection in Para No.8 of the reply to the complaint that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction as the amount involved in the subject matter exceeds than the limit prescribed by Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the complainants are seeking possession of the flat in dispute and the value of the flat as per agreement is Rs.42,75,000/- which is more than the limit prescribed in the said Act and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
This preliminary objection of the OPs of pecuniary jurisdiction is sustainable. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint because monetary value of the claim claimed by the complainants exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainants seek direction to complete the construction work of the flat of which agreed price is Rs.42,75,000/- and further direction to start process of electricity connection and pucca sewerage within stipulated period. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum on ground of preliminary objections but not on the merits of the complaint.
Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
August 19, 2015.
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
