Delhi

StateCommission

CC/585/2016

MRS. SHITU GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

NARESH GUPTA

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 15.07.2016

Date of Decision : 18.07.2016

Complaint No. 585/16 & 586/16

 

In the matter of:

 

Mrs. Shitu Gupta

W/o Sh. Prabodh Gupta,

R/o B-29, Ground Floor,

New Gupta Colony,

Delhi-110009.                                                                                    …..........Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

A Company duly incorporated under

Indian Companies Act, 1956

Through its Managing Director,

Having its registered office at:

Parsvnath Metro Tower,

Near Shahdara Metro Station,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032.

 

Having its incorporated office at:

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?                                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 

 

 

 O.P. Gupta - Member (Judicial)

 

 

1. By this common order, I shall be deciding two complaints bearing No. C-585/16 and 586/16 both titled as Mrs. Shitu Gupta Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

 

2. The facts mentioned in Complaint No.585/16 are that on 18.03.2005 a plot measuring 400 sq. yds. was booked with OP in Parsvnath City, Sonipat. The booking was done by Sh. Kishori Lal Baheti in the name of m/s. Kishori Lal Baheti HUF.  He executed requisite documents in favour of complainant on 20.09.2006.  OP registered transfer of advance registration in name of complainant vide letter dated 01.11.2006 and endorsed payment of Rs.11.50 lacs in the name of complainant. The plot was to be allotted @ Rs.9060/- per sq. yds. inclusive of all charges i.e. IDC/EDC etc. Since nothing was coming forward and there was no positive sign of any sooner allotment of plot, complainant vide letter dated 24.09.2009 was constrained to ask OP to refund money. On 12.02.2010, the OP called the complainant for signing buyers agreement.  The OP informed that it has no plot of 400 sq. yds and requested complainant to take two adjacent plots having total area of 390 sq. yds.  The complainant agreed and two plots No. B-3234 and 3235 were allotted.  The amount of Rs.11.50 lac paid initially was bifurcated in the manner that Rs.6,62,025/- was appropriated towards plot No.B-3234 and Rs.4,87,975/- was appropriated towards plot No.B-3235.  The complainant further paid Rs.6,00,750/- on 04.07.2011 for plot No. B3235.  The complaint paid further amount of Rs.1,52,190/- on 29.07.2010 and Rs.2,93,909/- on 30.06.2011 in respect of plot No.B3234.  Demand Notice dated 11.04.2016 was sent which was replied on 03.05.2016.  In reply, the OP stated that plot No. B-3096 was allotted and disputed that one plot was splited in two bookings on the request of OP. Hence, this complaint for refund of Rs.12,87,916/- being cost of plot paid by complainant, Rs.11,28,965/- being interest and Rs.5 lacs as compensation.

 

3. In Complaint Case No.586/16 the only difference is that principal amount paid by the complainant is Rs.12,68,517/- instead of Rs.12,87,916/-, interest claimed is Rs.10,57,707/- instead of Rs.11,28,965/-.  Rest of the averments are same.

 

4. The moot question to be decided is whether interest till filing of the case can be counted for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. The same has already been settled by three members bench judgement of National Commission in Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. National Insurance Co. II (2003) CPJ 81.The same has been followed 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.

 

5. What is to be seen is the amount of principal and compensation. The same falls below Rs.20 lacs and this Commission cannot entertain such complaint.

 

6. The complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  A copy of this order be placed on file in CC No.586/16 and one copy be sent to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  

 

7. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)