Haryana

Ambala

CC/253/2016

Ms. Renu Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Kamlesh Gupta

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

              

                          BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

           Complaint Case No.: 253 of 2016

Date of Institution   : 15.06.2016

Date of Decision     : 16.11.2016

Ms. Renu Chopra W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar R/o H.No.16, New Vijay Nagar, Ambala City.

                                                                                                ……Complainant.

Versus

1.         M/s Unitech Ltd. through its Managing Director, Signature Towers, Ground Floor, NH-8, South City-1, Gurgaon ( Haryana).

2.         M/s Unitech Ltd. through its Managing Director Regd. Office 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

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.                       

Present:          Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Abhishek Kathuria, Adv. for Ops.  

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint averring therein that she got booked a flat with OP in a township UNIHOMES carved out by OP in Sector 16, Ambala City having basic price of Rs.24,85,504/- and possession of the flat was to be handed over to complainant by OP within 36 months from the date of  signing the agreement executed on 11.08.2011.  Accordingly, complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,04,117/- to OP but they have failed to develop/raise construction on the site and hand over the possession of the flat as per terms of the agreement. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by the complainant seeking relief qua issuing a direction to the Ops:-

1. To pay compensation of Rs.15.00 lacs towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. To pay Rs.15.00 lacs towards mental torture, harassment and humiliation caused to the complainant alongwith 18 % interest per annum from the date of booking till the possession of the flat be given to the complainant.
3. To pay recurring compensation of Rs.50,000/- per month till the completion of construction and delivery of possession of the flat  to complainant.
4. To pay Rs.20,000/-towards cost of litigation.
5. And to handover possession of the flat at the earliest.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and took several opportunities for tendering reply but failed to tender the same. Today the case is also fixed for consideration on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction.

                        Counsel for Ops orally asserted that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form since it exceeds pecuniary limits of Rs.20.00 lacs entrusted to this Forum. He further argued that the complainant is seeking possession of the flat whose basic value is Rs.25,85,504/-. Apart from it, complainant is also seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs for deficiency in service and Rs.15.00 lacs for mental torture etc.. Over and above this, the complainant  is also seeking interest @ 18% per annum from the date of booking till the possession of the flat. Further, the complainant is also seeking recurring compensation of Rs.50,000/- per month till the completion of construction and delivery of possession of flat alongwith Rs.20,000/- as a litigation expenditure.  Even if the compensation amount alongwith 18% interest is calculated, it totals to more than Rs.20.00 lacs which is the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Further, the complainant is seeking possession of the flat the entire sale value of the flat has to be taken into account which is Rs.24,85,504/-.  Hence, the present complaint is absolutely beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

3.                     In view of this assertion of counsel for OP, the first and foremost question arises for consideration before this Forum is that “whether this Forum is having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint?”.

                        In support of his contention, the counsel for Ops has laid emphasis on Section-11 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduced 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”.

4.                     On the other hand, counsel for complainant has categorically contended that as per Buyer agreement, OP was bound to deliver possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of signing the agreement but Op has neither delivered the same till date nor started the construction at site though complainant has paid a sum of Rs.10,04,117/- which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.  In support of his contention, complainant counsel placed reliance on case law titled as Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s UNITECH LTD. C.C. No.427 of 2014 wherein various complaints of similar nature have been decided on 08.06.2015 by Hon’ble  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by issuing a direction to Ops to deliver possession of respective plot/flat to complainants and  pay compensation @ Rs.5/- sq. ft. of the super area as per terms of agreement and pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amount till the possession is delivered.

5.                     In light of the case laws referred above which says that pecuniary jurisdiction is to be decided (i) in accordance  with the prayer made in the complaint and (ii) the amount of interest claimed by the complainant to be added to the principal amount paid by him for the purpose of deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction.  Accordingly, we are of the confirmed opinion that this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint and the case law submitted by complainant’s counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case since in the said case, Consumer Complaint was directly filed in the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission where the question of pecuniary jurisdiction does not arise at all.  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. However, the complainant would be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings remained pending before the Forum. Original document, if any, annexed with the complaint be returned to the parties concerned on due receipt and retaining photocopy of the same on 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 ON:  16.11.2016.                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                  (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                     PRESIDENT                    

 

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                            (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER