Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1136/2016

ASHWANI BHALLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S THREE C HOMES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANAND P. DUBEY

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

                                              Date of Arguments: 11.01.17

     Date of Decision: 18.01.17

 

Complaint No. 1136/2016

 

In the matter of:

Shri Ashwani Bhalla

S/o Late Shri T.S.Bhalla

E-35, Neb Valley

Neb Sarai, Sainik Farms

New Delhi-110068.                                            ……….Complainant

 

 

                                                Vs.

 

 

M/s Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Through its all Directors

Tech-Boulevard Central Block

Plot No. 6, Sector 127

NOIDA-201301

Gautam Budh Nagar

Uttar Pradesh                                       …….Opposite Party No.1

 

Also at:

 

C-23, Greater Kailash-1

New Delhi.

 

 

 

 

2.     M/s Three C Universal Developers

        Private Ltd.

        Though its all Directors

        Tech-Boulevard Central Block

        Plot No. 6, Sector 127

        NOIDA-201301

Gautam Budh Nagar

Uttar Pradesh.                         …….Opposite Party No. 2

 

                          

CORAM

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

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

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

               

                                                  JUDGEMENT

 

          The case of the complainant is that he became ready to invest in project “Lotus City” and booked plot No. C-93, measuring  121 sq.yds on Yamuna Express Way, Greater Noida, UP. Provisional allotment letter dated 02.03.12 was issued alongwith general terms and conditions.  The demand notice dated 06.03.12 was issued.  He has paid Rs. 20,09,250/- out of 23,45,350/-.  OP assured to deliver possession within three years but six years have passed and there is no appropriate and adequate development. Keeping in mind lapses and lackadaisical approach, he does not wish to take that plot. In May, 2016 he informed OP about his decision.  OP assured that he would receive complete refund alongwith 11% interest within  10 days but to no use.  Hence this complaint for refund of the amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony, depression and frustration, Rs. 51,000/- as cost of litigation.  

2.      I have heard counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission.  The project is situated in NOIDA, UP. Simply because OP has its office in Greater Kailash is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Commission. Copy of Builder Buyer Agreement dated 24.12.15 shows that it was executed in District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP and stamp paper is also of UP.  There is no document to show that payment was made by way of cheque drawn on bank in Delhi.  Hence this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction. No part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.

3.      Clause 7 of the copy of general terms and conditions for provisional allotment at page 12 shows that OP was to complete the development of plot within 24 months with six months grace period from the date of execution of plot builder buyer agreement. During argument on admission the counsel for complainant produced copy of agreement dated 24.02.15.  Hence period of 24+6 months is to be counted from the said date. Viewed from that angle the time for delivery of possession would come on 24.08.17.  Complaint filed on 23.09.16 is premature.

4.                For foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed in limini.

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

                                                                                  

                                                                                                     (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)