Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/107/2019

Ashwani Kumar Prasher - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sanskriti Home, sub diary of M/s golden Oak Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet S. Rakhra

29 Jun 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/107/2019
Date of Institution	:	21/02/2019
Date of Decision	:	29/06/2020

 

 

Ashwani Kumar Prasher son of Sh. Gian Chand resident of H.No.603, PEC, Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Ravi Garg Managing Director/Chairperson/Authorised person of M/s Sanskriti Home, Subsidiary of M/s Golden Oak Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.78-79, Sector 8C, Chandigarh now resident of H.No.639, Sector 11, Chandigarh.
2. M/s Golden Oak Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.78-79. Sector 8C, Chandigarh through Ravi Garg s/o Sh. Ishwar Chander Garg, r/o H.No.639, Sector 11, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The allegations in brief are, complainant on 1.3.2016 had entered into an agreement for the purchase of a residential plot with the OPs pertaining to the area 1000 sq. ft. at the cost of Rs.6,96,000/-.  His case is, independent floor had to be allotted in Row Housing Project “Sanskriti Apartments” in the residential Township Project known as “Sector 115, Mohali.” Further case is, in fact, OPs had been selling the said dwelling unit for a price of Rs.19,90,000/- as against the basic price of Rs.6,96,000/-.  The complainant later on deposited the remaining amount of Rs.12,94,000/-. The possession was to be delivered within two years, but the same was not delivered.  Hence, the complainant alleged there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for directing the OPs to deliver the possession or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.19,90,000/- alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. 
2.     OPs could not be served through registered notice and on the application of the complainant, vide order dated 4.9.2019 they were ordered to be served through publication of proclamation in the newspaper Charhdikala, circulated in the locality of the OPs. However, despite of substituted service, OPs did not put in appearance and vide order dated 21.1.2020, they were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. 
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4.     We have gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.     The case of the complainant, as made out from the allegations levelled in the consumer complaint is a sum of Rs.6,96,000/- was paid by him at the time of agreement. It is also so deduced from the allotment letter (Annexure C-1) containing three leaves which shows the total cost of Rs.6,96,000/- appears to have been paid by the complainant to the OPs.
6.     The second averment was the remaining amount was paid in two parts i.e. Rs.5,79,000/- was got from the sale proceeds of the plot which was also sold through Sh. Ravi Garg/OP-1  and the remaining amount of Rs.7,15,000/- was paid in cash to OP-1.  However, except for mere saying in the averments made in the consumer complaint, no proof had been produced to say the plot of the complainant was sold for Rs.5,79,000/- by Sh. Ravi Garg and the remaining amount of Rs.7,15,000/- was given in cash. All these allegations are in air. No documentary evidence has been produced on record. Even the copy of the sale deed on the basis of which the plot was sold for Rs.5,79,000/- through Sh. Ravi Garg could have been produced to substantiate this fact. The receipt of the amount of Rs.7,15,000/- allegedly given in cash has also not been produced. No evidence whatsoever to this effect has been led by the complainant.
7.     We take the case otherwise. The total refund amount prayed for by the complainant is Rs.19,90,000/- alongwith 18% interest which was to be counted after two years i.e. to say after 1.3.2018 while the present consumer complaint was filed on 21.02.2019. This itself shows, the refund amount claimed alongwith interest exceeds Rs.20.00 lakhs and not only this, the complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs alongwith Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation while the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is upto Rs.20.00 lakhs only. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Harbinder Pal Singh Vs. M/s Angel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Consumer Case No.1704 of 2017 decided on 9.3.2018 had clarified the precedent of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and held that on the claimed refund amount pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined and not on the initially agreed amount.
8.     In view of above, it is safe to hold this Forum is functus officio in the matter and unable to entertain this consumer complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, the consumer complaint alongwith documents be returned to the complainant on retaining its Photostat copy for its presentation by him before the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, if so advised.  
9.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/06/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President