Delhi

StateCommission

CC/379/2016

BHAWANI PARSHAD SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

LAXMAN MEHTA

03 May 2016

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments: 03.05.2016

Date of Decision: 10.05.2016

Complaint No. 379/2016

 

In the matter of:

1. Sh. Bhiwani Prasad Sharma,

S/o Late Ram Narain.

 

2. Smt. Bindwasani Sharma,

W/o Sh. Bhiwani Prasad Sharma

 

Both R/o B-33, Gali No.17A,

Molarband Extn.,

•  

New Delhi.                                         .........Complainant

 

Versus

M/s. Parsvnath Developers,

Through Director(s)

Registered office – 6^th Floor, Arunchal Building,

19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

 

                                                                        ….....Opp. Party

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

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 is at the stage of admission.  The complainant is seeking refund of Rs.16,04,863.52/- alongwith interest @24% per annum amounting to Rs.25,67,781/-.  He has also sought directions to pay Rs.2,64,000/- as penalty for delayed possession, compensation of Rs.15 lac for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of proceedings.

 

2. It has been held by three member Bench of National Commission in Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. National Insurance Co. II (2003) CPJ 81 that interest is not to be counted for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is not sure as to whether court would grant interest or not and if granted what would be the rate of interest.  It is equally to note that agreement papers for penalty on delayed possession, the question of granted interest would amount to double penalty and is not likely to be granted.

 

3. The compensation for mental agony is highly exaggerated.  National Commission held in consumer Complaint No.1520/15 titled as Ashok Kumar Goel Vs. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank decided on 21.01.2016 that exaggerated value can be checked at the stage of admission of complaint.  Counsel for complainant relied upon the decision of State Commission, Rajasthan in Complaint Case No.77/12 titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Parsvnath Developers decided on 05.10.2015 to make out that similar complaint was entertained and relief was granted by State Commission.

 

4. I have gone through the said judgement. The OP has not taken any objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and so the same is not a precedent for the purpose. Moreover, in that case the complainant has paid Rs.22,85,395/- as part of the sale price which was within pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The same is not applicable in the present case.

 

5. The complaint is dismissed in limini for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

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

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)