JUDGMENT

JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant initially booked a residential apartment with the OP in a project namely ‘Capella’ in Uniworld City, which the OP was to develop in Greater Noida and apartment no. 1603 in the aforesaid project was allotted to him.  Thereafter, he was offered an apartment in another project namely ‘Unitech Verve’ which the OP was to develop in Greater Noida, in lieu of the apartment which had been allotted to him in ‘Capella’.  The complainant having agreed to the same, apartment no. 1102 in Block No. 5 of the project namely ‘Unitech Verve’ was allotted to the complainant in Greater Noida, vide allotment letter dated 12.08.2010, for a consideration of Rs.53,80,381/-.  As per clause 4(a)(i) of the terms and conditions of the allotment, the possession was to be delivered within 15 months of the allotment, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered on or before 12.11.2011.  The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the flat has not been offered to him despite he having already paid Rs.56,22,497/- to the OP.  The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by him alongwith compensation etc. 

2.      The complaint has been resisted by the OP on several grounds, but the learned counsel for the complainant submits that all those grounds have already been rejected by this Commission in several decisions including CC No. 253 of 2017 Sanjiv Razdan & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. decided on 05.12.2017 and Kiran Agarwal Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. decided on 31.08.2017.  Reliance is also placed upon Dewan Ashwani & Ors. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 282 of 2012. 

3.      In Consumer Complaint No. 709 of 2015, Ankur Goel Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. relating to this very project and decided on 27.7.2016, some additional contentions were advanced by the opposite party and were rejected by this Commission, taking the following view:

5.      The learned counsel for the complainants also relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudha Jain Vs. Chief Manager & Anr. [(2007) 5 SCC 717]. In Sudha Jain (supra), the State Commission directed return of the complaint for being filed before the District Forum, on the ground that the claim made in the complaint was exaggerated. The order of the State Commission was confirmed by this Commission in the revision petition. Setting aside the order passed by this Commission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- 

“As the amount claimed was Rs.68,51,321, which was within the jurisdiction of the State Commission and beyond the jurisdiction of the District Consumer forum. The State Commission was not justified in a returning the complaint. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is restored to its original file. Now, the State Commission shall dispose of the complaint in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.”

Reliance has also placed by the learned counsel for the complainants upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 668], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court interalia observed as under:-

  “It must be remembered that National Consumer Forum has jurisdiction, without pecuniary limitations, to award proper compensation, even less than the one claimed in a given case, depending upon the established facts and circumstances of that particular case and the evidence led by the parties. The District Commission and the State Commission, on the other hand, have pecuniary jurisdictional limitations for granting compensation beyond their jurisdictional limits. Under Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.5 lakhs. Section 17(a) of the Act provides that State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.5 lakhs, but does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. In view of these jurisdictional limitations of the District Forum and the State Commission, these bodies would not be able to award compensation, even if satisfied in a given case that the complainant was entitled to more compensation than what he had claimed, beyond their pecuniary jurisdiction.”

6.      The learned counsel for the OP on the other hand refers to Nandita Bose Vs. Ratanlal Nahata [Civil Appeal No.1544 of 1987] decided on 4.8.1987 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court interalia observed and held as under:-

“The principles which regulate the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts are well settled. Ordinarily, the valuation of a suit depends upon the reliefs claimed therein and the plaintiff's valuation in his plaint determines the Court in which it can be presented. It is also true that the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court by either grossly over-valuing or grossly under-valuing a suit. The Court always has the jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of law. Under rule 10 of Order 7 of the Code the plaint can be returned at any stage of the suit for presentation to the court in which the suit should have been instituted.”

However, in the present case, considering the provisions contained in section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act when read with in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra), it cannot be said that the claim for payment of more than Rs.1 crore is deliberately exaggerated or inflated in order to bring the matter for pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and, therefore, amounts to abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the aforesaid decision does not help the opposite party.

          Reliance is also placed upon Neha Suri Vs. M/s Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 977 of 2015 decided on 04.01.2017. 

3.      The learned counsel for the complainant states on instructions that in order to avoid further litigation in the matter, the complainant is restricting his claim to the refund of the principal amount paid by him alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum in terms of clause 4.e. of the terms and conditions of the allotment which reads as under:

“4.e. Default:

If for any reason the Developer is not in a position to offer the Apartment altogether, the developer shall offer the Allottee(s) an alternative property or refund the amount paid in full with simple interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation on this account.”

4.      The complaint is therefore, disposed of with the following directions:

          (i)      The OP shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.56,22,497/-  to the complainant alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum with effect from the date of each payment till the date of full refund. 

          (ii)      The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

          (iii)     The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.