Haryana

Ambala

CC/63/2017

Kamalpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Nikhilesh Bhagi

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No.: 63 of 2017

Date of Institution   : 27.02.2017

Date of Decision     :  25.10.2017

Kamalpreet Kaur w/o Sh.Jitender Singh r/o 647, Housing Board, Sector-7, Ambala.

                                                                                                            ……Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/s Unitech Limited, Signature Tower, Ground Floor, South City-I, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director
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, Uniworld City at 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. Nikhilesh Bhagi, 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 & residential township under the name and style M/s Unitech Limited and extensively advertised for promotion and developing a residential township as Unihomes, Uniworld City, Sector-16 at Ambala. The complainant had purchased/booked a flat with OPs in April, 2011 and the possession of the flat was to be delivered up till July, 2013. The OPs had allotted a flat No.0158 Floor 02 Tower B Unihomes, Uniworld City Sector-16 Ambala vide allotment letter 15.04.2011 and regarding this an agreement was also executed on 05.09.2011 qua total sale price of Rs.22,36,736/-.  As per payment schedule, the complainant has paid Rs.6,40,425 /-  but the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the flat as per assurance and even failed to complete the construction thereon. On enquiry, it was intimated to the complainant by the OPs that the possession would be delivered in the second week of March, 2015 but the Ops have not offered the possession or refunded the money to the complainant. The complainant requested the OPs to refund the money and even got served legal notice upon them but neither the delivered the possession of the flat nor refunded the money deposited by the complainant alongwith interest. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  The complainant has prayed for the refund of the amount i.e. Rs.6,40,425/- and Rs.2,40,910/-  alongwith interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of deposit till its realization and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation alongwith cost of litigation charges to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.

 2.                    Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered an application for dismissing the complaint of the complainant in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as in a complaint instituted under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of a aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.  The present complaint is even not maintainable and the same cannot be adjudicated in summarily manner. At last, 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. As per version of the complainant the value of the flat is Rs.22,36,736/-, 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 OPs 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