Delhi

StateCommission

CC/337/2016

MRS. CHANDER KANTA BABBAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

ATUL SHARMA

19 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :  19.07.2016

Date of Decision : 21.07.2016

Complaint No. 337/16 & 338/16

 

In the matter of:

Mrs. Chander Kanta Babbar,

W/o Late Sh. Subhash Chander Babbar,

R/o H.No.F8/8, Vasant Vihar,

New Delhi-110057.                                                                          …..........Complainant

 

VERSUS

M/s. Parsvnath Developers Limited,

Through its Managing Director (A Public Limited Company),

Regd. office:

6^th Floor, Arunachal Building,

19, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                                     ….............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. By this order, I shall be deciding two complaints bearing no. C-337/16 and C-338/16 as common question arises in both the matters.

 

2. The cases are at initial state of admission.  The simple question which arises is whether interest till the filing of complaint can be added for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  The same is no more resintegra in view of three member bench decision of National Commission in Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. National Insurance Co. II (2003) CPJ 81. The same has been followed by National Commission in M/s. Ritu Duggal Vs. Unitech Reliable Project Ltd. CC No.1521/15 decided on 01.02.2016 and Sanjay Katial Vs. Hemilton Heights (P) Ltd.  in CC No.634/16 pronounced on 05.05.2016. If the interest is excluded, the quantum of penalty for delayed possession would come to less than Rs.20 lacs.  In such matters, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

3. The counsel for complainant relied upon the decision of National Commission in Swarn Talwar and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd., CC No.347-350 decided on 14.08.2015.  In that case interest was not directly an issue.  Rather the National Commission took part of the interest as compensation and after adding the same it was held that National Commission had the jurisdiction.  Moreover, the earlier decision of three member bench in Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. National Insurance Co.(supra) was not cited before the National Commission and consequently same was not considered.

 

4. In view of decision of three members bench of National Commission, I am unable to follow the decision cited by counsel for complainant.  The complaints are dismissed.

 

5. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as per rules.

 

6. One copy of this order be placed in file of CC-338/16.

 

7. File be consigned to Record Room.

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)