Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1155/2016

PRATIBHA GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PRABHU SHANTI REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

O.P GUPTA

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI

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

Date of Arguments: 18.10.2016

Date of Decision: 24.10.2016

Complaint No. 1155/2016

 

In the matter of:

Smt. Pratibha Goel,

W/o Sh. Neeraj Goyal,

R/o Flat No.74, 1^st Floor,

North Avenue-II, Omaxe City,

Bahadurgarh, Haryana.                                                               …..........Complainant

 

Versus

M/s. Prabhu Shanti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

BU-I, SFS Flats, Pitampura,

New Delhi.                                                                                        …............ 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)

Judgement

1. The case of the complainant is that she paid  Rs.4,00,000/- on 22.03.2013 and booked a flat in project namely “PDM-Hitech homes II’ Near PDM Dental College, Bahadurgarh, (Haryana).  She paid another Rs.3,00,000/- on 01.08.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.09.2013.  The OP represented that flat would be handed over within a period of two years from the date of booking. No agreement has been executed nor allotment has been made.  She sent notice through advocate on 05.09.2016 which was received back with a remarks ‘left’. The OP was to construct upto 10^th floor but on visit on 23.09.2016 it was found that even 4^th floor structure has not been completed.  She is entitled to receive back the entire amount with 18% interest alongwith compensation in sum of  Rs.10,00,000/-.  Hence this complaint for refund of Rs.8,00,000/- as principal amount Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation with interest @18% per annum which comes to Rs.4,81,500/-.

 

2. I have gone through the material on record and heard at the stage of admission. The complainant has not disclosed the total price of the flat booked by her.  There is no agreement from which the price can be noticed.  The amount deposited by her so far is Rs.8,00,000/-.

 

3. I asked the counsel for the complainant as to how this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction. He relied upon the decision of National Commission in FA No.644/15 titled as Prakshit Prashar Vs. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016 and submitted that amount of interest and compensation has to be added for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Viewed from that angle the complainant has claimed Rs.22,81,500/- so this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

4. I have gone through the decision cited by counsel for complainant. The said decision allows inclusion of interest only on the ground that there is no provision in the Act for grant of interest as such. Interest is granted by way of compensation  and Act provides for considering the pecuniary jurisdiction on the basis of aggregate value of principal amount plus compensation.

 

5. From the above what can be deduced that either interest or compensation, one can be given and not both. Since the complainant has claimed interest amounting to Rs.4,81,500/- calculated @18% per annum, she cannot claim compensation separately. The amount of principal sum and interest comes to Rs.12,81,500/- which is again less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

6. In any event, claim of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- that too in 2013 is highly exaggerated. It is settled law that if compensation is inflated or exaggerated, the court can check the same at the stage of admission itself.  For this, reliance can be placed on decision of National Commission in CC No.135/11 titled as Ramesh Kumar Vs. Goel Eye decided on 30.03.2012, CC No.506/15 titled as Vikas Singh Vs. BMW (I) Pvt. Ltd. decided on 25.08.2015.

 

7. The complaint is returned for presentation to the District Forum having jurisdiction.

 

8. One copy of this order be sent to both the parties.

 

9. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)