DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                      Consumer Complaint No.747 of 2016

                                                Date of institution:  03.11.2016                                         Date of decision   :  04.12.2017

Mohinder Kumar Thakur son of Lt. Sh. Ishwar Dass Thakur, resident of village Bhawani, Post Office Badhalag, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan (H.P.).

 ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     M/s. Bajwa Developers Ltd., through its Managing Director Office at Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, Tehsil Kharar, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

2.     Jarnail Singh Bajwa son of Bishan Singh, Managing Director, M/s. Bajwa Developers Ltd., through Office at Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, Tehsil Kharar, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

                                                           ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14

Of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri Jasminder Pal Singh, cl. for the complainant.

Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Mohinder Kumar has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12  to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant was allotted 1 BHK BR No.1153, under Khata No. Sunny, Khasra No. Apartment, Plot F21, C74A, 117, measuring 450 sq. ft. Sunny Apartment F 21, Mohali, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali having covered area of 450 sq. ft. at a price of Rs.12,50,100/- by the OPs and agreement to sell was entered between the parties on 16.05.2011.    The complainant had made the payment as per the schedule described by the OPs and according to the agreement dated 16.05.2011.  The complainant had made a total payment of Rs.5,00,000/-to the OPs and receipt of payment is acknowledged by the OPs on the last page of agreement dated 16.05.2011.  Till date neither the possession of the flat has been given to the complainant nor any notice of possession has been served to the complainant by the OPs.  The complainant made frequent visits/calls to the OPs to know the status of site and to pay the balance part of agreement but to his utter dismay the OPs miserably failed to apprise the complainant with the proper information and due to this reason; the complainant had not paid the balance consideration.  The OPs has assured to handover the possession to the complainant within 36 months from the date of agreement/sale deed. The complainant got issued the legal notice dated 31.08.2016 to the OPs for handing over the possession within 15 days and in the eventuality of failure to handover the possession, refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of agreement  and also pay him Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment.  The Ops have paid no need to the said legal notice. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to handover possession of the above stated agreed site and receive the balance consideration amount and pay him Rs.7,50,000/- for mental agony and harassment OR in the alternative refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum; compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.55,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OPs by filing reply, in which they have raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, this the complaint is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as the complainant has prayed for possession of the flat alongwith compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-  which comes to Rs.20,02,000/-.; that the complaint is time barred as the agreement was entered into on 16.05.2011 and the last payment of Rs.1,87,500/- was paid on 24.01.2012 and the instant complaint has been filed on 03.11.2016.  Both the parties were bound by terms of the contract dated 16.05.2011 and as per Clause 3 of the agreement it was specifically stipulated that in case any installment is not paid within a period of 15 days from the stipulated date then the earnest money stand forfeited. The complainant failed to deposit the installments as per the schedule provided in the agreement and has deposited only the first installment and thereafter failed to deposit any further installment.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW-1/1; copies of agreement Ex.C-1; legal notice dated 31.08.2016 Ex.C-2; postal receipt Ex.C-3 and C-4.   In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jarnail Singh Bajwa, its MD Ex.OP-1/1.

5.             At the very outset learned counsel for the OPs has argued that this Forum has not the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint.  He has argued that the value of the flat is Rs.12,52,000/- and the complainant has sought possession of the flat alongwith compensation for mental anguish and physical harassment to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-. Thus by clubbing these amounts, it goes beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  Learned counsel has further argued that the complainant in the alternative has sought relief of refund of deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony, trauma and harassment besides Rs.55,000/- towards costs of litigation.  If these three amounts are clubbed with the value of the property it also goes beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  In support of this contention learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2017(1) CPJ 1 wherein it is observed that it is the value of the goods or services, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in case titled as Ansal’s Woodbury Apartments Residents Welfare Association Vs. Ansals Housing & Construction Ltd. & another in First Appeal No.931 of 2016 decided on 16.05.2017 has also relied upon the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

6.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties. We are in agreement with the contentions of learned counsel for the OPs and find that the complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab.

                Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby ordered to be returned to the complainant alongwith all the requisite documents placed on record. Further complainant is also granted liberty to approach the appropriate court of law/State Commission/National Commission for redressal of their grievances.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 04.12.2017    

                                           (A.P.S.Rajput)                 

President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member