Delhi

StateCommission

CC/231/2015

M/S A3M REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                                            Date of Arguments:   17.10.2017

                                                                     Date of Decision:      01.11.2017

Complaint No. 231/2015

In the matter of:

M/S A3M Real Estate Private Limited

A company incorporated and constituted

Under the Indian Companies Act, 1956

Having its registered office at:-

A-147, 3^rd Floor, Saraswati Vihar

Pitampura, Delhi

Through its Director Mr. Anil Mahajan                                                        ……Complainant

                                                           

Versus

M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd.

A company incorporated and constituted

Under the Indian Companies Act, 1956

Having its registered office at:-

A-307, Ansal Chambers-I

3, Bikaji Cama Place

New Delhi-110066.

 

Also at:-

Spazedge, Sector-47

Gurgaon Sohna Road

Gugaon-122002, Haryana                                                                               …….Respondents

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

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

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

            The complaint has been filed on the allegation that complainant is a private limited company incorporated under Indian Companies Act 1956.  The complaint has been signed verified and filed by Shri Anil Mahajan, Director and constituted attorney of the complainant.  He has been authorized by the company to do so vide resolution dated 01.04.15.  The complainant booked flat on ground floor in project of OP known as “SPAZE KALISTAA’  in sector -84 , Gurgaon  for its own use being office run in rented accommodation.  The complainant paid booking amount of Rs.7,50,000/-.  It deposited remaining amount as and when demanded.  The total sale consideration was Rs. 2,62,82,939/- .  Hence this complaint for asking OP to refund Rs. 62,47,455/- paid by it alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment till realisation and Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss, loss of goodwill, mental torture and harassment.

2.         OP was served for 16.11.15 and it put for appearance through counsel Shri Sujeet Gupta.  Copy of complaint was supplied on 4^th May, 2016 and OP was directed to file WS within 30 days.  No WS was filed.  Rather OP moved an application dated 04.04.16 challenging maintainability of the complaint. Ground of challenge is that complainant  is private limited company dealing in Real Estate business and modus operandi is to make profit by first buying property at initial stage at a low price and then to sell it when property market rises so as to earn profit.  The complainant booked two flats and took heavy discount.  This amounts to booking flats for commercial benefit as per decision of National Commission dated 23.08.07 in Jagmohan Chabra vs DLF Universal Ltd.

3.         The complainant has filed reply to the above application.  According to it company can be consumer as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No. 1879 of 2003 titled as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation vs. Ashok Iron works decided on 09.02.09. It  relied upon order dated 13.09.16 of District Forum VIII in CC No. 368/15 titled as M/s A3M Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd.  The said case was between the same parties as in the present complaint.

4.         We may out rightly observe that decision of District Forum is not a precedent.

5.         Without entering into controversy whether company can purchase a flat for residence and whether such a case would be covered by Consumer Protection Act, it is sufficient to mention here value of the property booked by complainant was Rs. 2,62,82,939/- as mentioned in para 6s of the complaint.  As per the latest law by three Member Bench decision of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla I (2017) CPJ 1 there is no scope for argument addressed by counsel for complainant.  Value of the property is to be seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of deficiency.  Over and above the same question again came up before National Commission in Raj Kishore vs. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. III (2017) CPJ 155. In that case total sale price of the property was above Rs. 20,00,000/- but complainant filed complaint for refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the OP. That complaint was filed in State Commission and was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.16 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file fresh complaint in District Forum.  The complainants went in appeal contending that consumer dispute involved property whose value was above Rs. 20,00,000/-. 

6.         National Commission allowed the appeal and held in para 7 that it is crystal clear from observations in Ambrish Kumar Shukla that even if there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant the total value of the said service is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.

6.            In view of the above law the complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and the same is returned to the complainant for being filed in National Commission.

 

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                   (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                           MEMBER(JUDICIAL)