Haryana

Ambala

CC/355/2016

Harvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

G.S. Bawa

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No.: 355 of 2016

Date of Institution   : 16.09.2016

Date of Decision     :  25.10.2017

Harvinder Singh aged 40 son of Sh.Gurbachan Singh r/o H.No.14-B, Durga Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                            ……Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Unitech Limited through its Managing Director, Signature Tower, Ground Floor, N.H.No.8 South City, Gurgaon (Haryana).
2. M/s Unitech Limited 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.

                        MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                       

Present:          Sh. G.S.Bawa, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Ops exparte.  

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint averring therein that one R.B.Singh had purchased a plot No.164 measuring 253 Sq.Yards in Unihomes from OPs and thereafter said plot was transferred in favour of the complainant vide agreement dated 13.07.2013 and the amount to the tune of Rs.5,66,214/- was acknowledged by the OPs from the complainant  and assured that the construction of the flat shall be commenced very soon but the Ops have not even started the construction and the site is lying vacant upon which the flats were to be constructed. The complainant requested the Ops to handover the possession of the flat and to commence the construction and also served legal notice upon them but to no avail. By way of this complaint he also prayed for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-  for deficiency in service and Rs.4,00,000/- for unfair trade practice, harassment, mental torture and tension alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of booking till the possession of the flat is given.

 2.                    Notice was issued to the Ops through registered post but none has turned up on behalf of OPs, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.11.2016.

3.                     We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the record very minutely. It is not disputed that the value of the property is Rs.19,46,736/- and the  complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-  for deficiency in service and Rs.4,00,000/- for unfair trade practice, harassment, mental torture and tension alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of booking till the possession of the flat is given, 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. On this point reliance can be given from 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”. Similarly, in 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. Copy 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