Delhi

StateCommission

CC/733/2016

PARUL SINGLA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

ANUJ JAIN

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

                                              Date of Arguments: 17.08.2016

     Date of Decision: 29.08.2016

 

Complaint No. 733/16

In the matter of:

 

1. Parul Singla W/o Sh. Deep Dawar

Permanent R/o G-53, Flat No. 9,

East of Kailash, New Delhi.

Presently residing at 34, Robinson Way,

Nothfleet, Kent, DA11 9 AB, UK

Through Her Spa Sh. Chander Bhushan Dawar

s/o Sh. Tek Chand Dawar

R/o G-53, Flat No. 9,

East of Kailash, New Delhi.

 

2. Deep Dawar S/o Sh. C.B.Dawar

Permanent R/o G-53, Flat No. 9,

East of Kailash, New Delhi.

Presently residing at : 34, Robinson Way,

Northfleet, Kent, DA11 9 AB, UK

Through His Spa Sh. Chander Bhushan Dawar

S/o Sh. Tek Chand Dawar

R/o G-53, Flat No. 9

East of Kailash, New Delhi                                ……..Complainants

 

Versus

 

        M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

        Registered office : 6^th Floor,

        Arunachal Buildingh,

        19, Barakhamba Road,

        New Delhi-110001.

                       

 

 

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? Yes    

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The short question involved in the present case is whether interest can be added for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 13,24,868/- paid by him to the  OP as per Flat Buyer Agreement dated 20.01.08 and Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty three lakhs) on account of interest @ 18% per annum.

2.         The complainant booked Flat No. T-2/1901with Parsvnath Privilege on lease for 90 years w.e.f. 12.01.07 with rights of usage of common areas and facilities in complex for consideration of Rs. 62,34,747.75. 

3.         The controversy is no more rest integra in view of the decision of three members bench of National Commission in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mill vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. II (2003) CPJ 81 and decision in complaint case No. 1521/15 Titled as M/s Ritu Duggal vs. Unitech Reliable Project Pvt. Ltd decision dated 01.02.16. The same view has been reinstated in consumer case No. 636/16 Titled as Sanjay Katyal vs. Hamilton Heights Pvt. Ltd. decided by National Commission on 05.05.16.

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

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

 

 

 

 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)