Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1010/2015

RAJ KISHORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                                    Date of Arguments: 11.02.2016  

Date of Decision: 16.02.2016

 

Complaint Case No. 1010/2015

In the matter of:

Raj Kishore

G-26/445, Sector 3

Rohini, Delhi-110085...........Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd.

10 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg

New Delhi-110001.........Opposite Party                                                            

CORAM

 

O P GUPTA                              -                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

S C JAIN                                 -                  MEMBER

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

O P GUPTA -  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.       The case is still at the stage of admission. Short question which arise is whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant has sought refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- allegedly paid by him as excess amount to the OP. He has also claimed interest @ 21% p.a. on the said amount. Rs. 42,292/- as compensation for delayed delivery of possession alongwith interest @ 21% p.a. from 18.04.2014 till realisation and Rs. 51,000/- towards legal expenses have also been claimed. Rs. 88,000/- has also claimed for rent paid by the complainant for residence elsewhere. The sum total of the relief claimed is much much lesser than the pecuniary limitation to this Commission which starts from Rs. 20,00,000/-.
2.       Counsel for the complainant submitted that the value of the flat booked by him was Rs. 25,44,426/-. So this Commission has jurisdiction i.e. how he has valued jurisdiction in Para 36 of the complaint. He has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 885/2012 titled as Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Priti Kapur decided on 13.07.2012. That decision is based upon concession given by the counsel for the complainant that value of the plot ought to have been included for the purpose of jurisdiction. The same is not a precedent.
3.       Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the decision of this Commission in Complaint Case No. 310/2010 titled as Sarla Tantia Vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. decided on 22.03.2012. In that the complainant had claimed Rs. 30,00,000/- towards mental shock and imbalance, Rs. 25,000/- as litigation charges and 10% interest on Rs. 12,50,000/- paid by him for advance booking, withdrawal of additional demand of Rs. 41,25,353/- . It is true that observation have come in Para 8 of the order that value of the plot was Rs. 1,11,66,500/- which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. But the same are obiter.
4.       On the other hand, the Hon’ble National Commission has ruled in Complaint Case No. 1164/2015 titled as Jyoti Swaroop Abrol Vs. Puri Constructions & Ors. decided on 12.10.2015 that since complainant was not seeking possession of the flat booked by him the value of flat was immaterial. The complainant was seeking refund of an amount of Rs. 29,92,754/- paid by him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and the complaint was dismissed with liberty to file afresh complaint before State Commission.
5.       Applying the law laid down in Jyoti Swaroop (Supra), the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the District Forum.
6.       Copy of the order be sent to both the parties.

 

 

(O P Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S C Jain)

•  

 

6.