Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/55/2015

M.Inayatholla sharif, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.DLF Home Developers Ltd, Sansad Marg,Rep by its Chairman - Opp.Party(s)

V.T.Narendran

09 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  21.02.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  09.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY  THE 09^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.55/2015

 

 

Mr.M.Inayathulla Sharif,

Aged about: 41 years,

No.7/3, Ayyam Perumal Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. DLF Home Developer Ltd.,

Sansad Marg,

New Delhi 110 001,

Represented by its Chairman.

 

2.M/s. DLF Home Developer Ltd.,

J.K.Subramanian,

Senior Executive Director,

Having its Regional Office at

Old No.828, New No.268,

Poonamallee High Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

 

 

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 19.03.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.V.T.Narendiran, P.K.Rajangam

 

Counsel for   Opposite Parties                 : M/s.Aiyar & Dolia

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to pay compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the complainant with costs of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties developed a Housing Project in the name of “Commander’s Court” at Ethiraj  Salai, Chennai. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to buy an apartment No.2 on the 3^rd floor in the building No.E. The complainant also paid an amount a Rs.8,20,600/- on 21.01.2011 towards booking amount to the 2^nd opposite party. Thereafter to raise a bank loan for the balance amount, the complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party’s employee Mr.Balaji to provide plan approval of the building and the required legal papers to him. However, the said documents were not furnished to the complainant inspite of requests made by him on several occasions. Hence the complainant  with no other alternative forced to issue legal notice dated 27.09.2013 to the opposite parties to refund the booking amount paid by him. The opposite parties failed to refund the said amount and thereby committed deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to  direct the opposite parties to refund the booking amount of Rs.8,20,600/- to him and also to pay compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the complainant with costs of the complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties submits that the apartment buyers agreement  contains an arbitration clause 54 that the dispute should be referred to the arbitration and section 8  of the Arbitration and Conciliation act 1996 bars this Forum to entertain this complaint. Further the present complaint is barred by limitation.

          3. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,20,600/- on 24.01.2011 along with application dated 24.01.2011 as booking amount which shall be treated as earnest money and thereafter the apartment buyers agreement as executed on 07.03.2011. The complainant had not chosen to fulfill any of the condition mentioned the apartment buyers agreement executed by him. He had not paid the installment money as agreed in the agreement. Inspite of repeated remainders the complainant belatedly made payments. The complainant suppressing the above facts approached this Forum with a speculative claim. The complainant filed this complaint for return of earnest money is not maintainable as the same has no cause of action and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 & 2

          The opposite parties have developed a Housing Project in the name of “Commander’s Court” at Ethiraj Salai, Chennai. The 1^st opposite party is the Head of the office and the 2^nd opposite party is having at Chennai who is executing the project. The complainant  approached the 2^nd opposite party to buy an apartment No.2          on the 3^rd floor in building No.E in the said project. The complainant also submitted an application dated 24.01.2011 to the 2^nd opposite party and also paid a sum of Rs.8,20,600/- as booking amount to him. The complainant also entrusted Ex.A1 agreement dated 07.03.2011 with the opposite parties.

          6. The complainant alleged deficiency is that he had demanded the 2^nd opposite party employee Mr.Balaji to furnish plan approval of the project and other legal papers for title verification to obtain bank loan and however the same was not handed over to him and even after demand made by him to furnish the same, the opposite parties have not furnished the documents to the complainant and hence the complainant sent Ex.A2 notice dated 29.07.2013 to the opposite parties and even after that he had not been furnished the documents and hence  the complainant filed this complaint.

          7. The opposite parties would contend that they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant and further the amount paid by the complainant is an earnest money and the same can be forfeited  and further the complainant filed this complaint only for refund of money and he has not availed any service from the opposite party and if at all, if any remedy is available to him he can seek only from the Civil Courts and  therefore prays to dismiss the complaint.

          8. Admittedly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,20,600/- to the 2^nd opposite party to buy an apartment on 24.01.2011 towards booking amount. After such payment the complainant demanded the 2^nd opposite party to furnish the plan approval for the project and legal papers for title verification in order to obtain a bank loan. The opposite parties have not denied that the complainant  has to obtain bank loan and in order to make the further payments. Hence for obtaining bank loan the copy of the documents sought by the complainant  is essential to apply for a bank loan. The opposite parties have not furnished those documents as demanded by the complainant.

          9. The counsel for the complainant contended that the value of the apartment booked by the complainant is more than  2,00,00,000/- and hence this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complainant and further in support of his contention he relied on a judgment of the  National Commission reported in I(2017) CPJ 1 (NC) (AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA & 21 ORS. VS. FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD) that his Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The National Commission held in the above referred case that for determining pecuniary jurisdiction the aggregate value of the goods purchased or the service hired and the consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the Consumers at the time of purchasing the goods or availed the service.  

          10. As per Ex.A1 agreement entered between the complainant and the opposite parties the total price of the apartment fixed at Rs.2,11,58,050/- to be paid by the complainant and apart from that the complainant also claimed compensation for deficiency in service mental agony with cost of the complainant.  Therefore the value of the flat agreed to be purchased by the complainant exceeds Rs.2,00,00,000/-. This Forum has jurisdiction only to entertain the complaint upto the value of Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint in this Forum as the value of the flat exceeds Rs.2,00,00,000/-.

          11. As we held above that this Forum no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide and to entertain this case in this forum, the other contentions raised by the either parties need not be discussed on merits and therefore for want of pecuniary jurisdiction we have decided  to return the complaint to file before the appropriate authority.

          In the result the complaint is returned on the ground that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. It is further ordered to present the complaint before the proper Forum within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^th day of February 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 07.03.2011                   Agreement Between complainant and opposite

                                                    parties

 

Ex.A2 dated 27.09.2013                   Notice to opposite parties

Ex.A3 dated 01.10.2013                   Postal Acknowledgement cards

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :
………NIL…….

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT