Haryana

Ambala

CC/262/2016

Kaptan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Unitech Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Gupta

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

             Complaint Case No.: 262 of 2016

Date of Institution   : 24.06.2016

Date of Decision     :  25.10.2017

 

Katpan Singh aged about 52 years son of Sh.Ram Chander resident of village Anandpur Jalbera Tehsil & District Ambala.

 

                                                                                                            ……Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/s Unitech Limited Ground Floor, signature Towers, South City-I, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Unitech Limited 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director.
3. Incharge office of Unitech Ltd. Unihomes Sector-16, Ambala City, Haryana.

                                                                                                         ……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:        SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

                       

Present:          Sh. Navneet Gupta, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Abhishek Kathuria, Adv. counsel for Ops.  

 

ORDER.

 

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint averring therein that the OPs are engaged in the business of developing colonies and residential township under the name and style of M/s Unitech Limited and extensively advertised for promotion for developing residential township at Ambala City by giving assurance that the possession of the flats would be delivered within 24 months i.e. up till November, 2014.  The complainant had applied for a flat with OPs as it was assured that the possession would be delivered within 24 months by the OPs failing which they would be liable to pay interest @ 10 % per annum upon the entire deposited amount.  It was also agreed that the payment of installments would start after starting the actual construction and further on its subsequent construction.  The complainant was allotted Flat No.0104 Floor-Ground Block-00B Unihomes, Uniworld City Sector 16, Ambala vide allotment letter dated 24.11.2012 and an agreement to this effect was also reduced into writing. The complainant deposited the installment of Rs.4,00,000/- on 18.12.2012 against the said flat besides Rs.50,000/- on 30.11.2012.   The complainant waited patiently for the possession of flat till completion of 24 months from the date of agreement/allotment of plot dated 24.11.2012. The complainant visited the OPs in the month of June, 2014 but it came to his knowledge that no construction work has been started but it was asked to the complainant that the possession of the flat would be given to him in the second week of July, 2015.  He believed on the version of the Ops instead of giving the possession of flat as well as sufficient reply to the queries of complainant the Ops kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and even they are also involved in deceptive practice by violating the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant prayed for refund of the amount Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 10 % per annum as well as return the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- from the date of deposit and to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and cost of the complaint. 

 2.                    Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered reply to the complaint raising preliminary objections qua pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of the property itself is Rs.45,34,352/-. Besides this, some other objections viz. territorial jurisdiction & complainant is not covered in the definition of  consumer  and the relief sought by the complainant is not a consumer dispute rather a dispute of contractual nature which can only be adjudicated in civil proceedings etc. have  also been raised. It has been submitted that no such assurance was given to the complainant that the possession of the flat would be delivered till November, 2014. The possession of the units would be given within a tentative time frame from the date of signing of the Buyer Agreement. The complainant had committed default in making the payment of installments as the cheque dated 16.02.2013 for Rs.4,00,000/- was dishonoured by his banker for insufficient funds. The cheuqe dated 30.11.2012  for Rs.4,00,000/- was returned to the complainant and the cheque dated 15.12.2012 for Rs.4,00,000/- was also dishonoured by the banker of the complainant. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and a prayer for dismissal of complaint with heavy cost has been made.

3.                     We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as Ops and gone through the record very minutely. The value of the property is Rs.45,34,352/-, therefore, before going further it is desirable to re-produce Section -11 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is as under:-

“11 Jurisdiction of the District Forum (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum  shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs”.

Section-11 is worded in clear terms and leaves no one in doubt that the District Forum shall not entertain any complaint which exceeds its pecuniary limits beyond Rs.20.00 lacs. The counsel for the OP further strengthened his version by placing reliance on case law 2016(3) CLT Pg. 20 (NC)  titled as Ravi Marwah Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has been held that “Housing construction-Refund claimed with interest-The amount of interest claimed by the flat buyers needs to be added to the principal amount paid by them for the purpose of deciding whether a particular complaint falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of  Consumer Forum”. Counsel for OP has also placed reliance on case law rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as M/s Omaxe Ltd Vs. Iqbal Begum & Anr. etc. decided on 16.05.2014 in First Appeal No.887 of 2013 wherein it is held that “pecuniary jurisdiction  is to be decided in accordance with the prayer made in the  complaint”.  Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh while deciding the complaint titled as Manmohan Singh Vs. Unitech etc. on 07.03.2017 has held that if the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer is taken as the value of the goods or services in that case, the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.

4.                     In view of the legal proposition enunciated above, we refrain ourselves from giving any opinion whether complainant falls within the purview of consumer or whether any deficiency on the part of Ops but we decide the point of pecuniary jurisdiction first in light of the case laws referred above. Accordingly, we are of the confirmed opinion that this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and thus the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs with a liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate authority on the same cause of action.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583. The complainant can take all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and the office is also directed to hand-over the same, if any, attached with the complaint against proper receipt & identification and after placing photocopy of the same on the case file. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

ANNOUNCED: 25.10.2017                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                              PRESIDENT               

 

 

        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                               MEMBER                                          

 

                                                                                           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                                                                                               MEMBER