Haryana

StateCommission

RP/96/2017

SUNCITY PROJECTS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIRMAL DALAL - Opp.Party(s)

ATUL AGGARWAL

26 Jul 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Revision Petition No:       96 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution:           04.10.2017

                                                Date of Decision:             26.07.2018

 

 

 

1.      M/s Suncity Projects Private Limited, through its Managing Director, Suncity Business Tower, 2^nd Floor, Sector 54, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon.

 

2.      M/s Suncity Buildcon Private Limited, Sector 35, Sonepat Road, Rohtak.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Mrs. Nirmal Dalal wife of Sh. Surender Singh Dalal, House No.1299, Sector 3, Rohtak and presently A-1184, Ground Floor, Sector 17B, Gurgaon-122001.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                      

         

Argued by:          Shri Atul Aggarwal, Advocate for petitioners.

                             Respondent ex parte

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          By filing this revision petition, Suncity Projects Private Limited and its functionary-opposite parties (petitioners herein) have challenged the order dated September 11^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the application filed by the petitioners to dismiss the complaint for the reason that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint, was dismissed.

2.      Notice was issued to the respondent-complainant.  She has been duly served through Process Serving Agency of District Forum.  Despite service, she did not appear.  Hence, the respondent is proceeded ex parte. 

3.      The only submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per sale deed, value of the plot was Rs.16,05,617/- and Rs.15,71,000/- alongwith interest was claimed by the complainant on account of compensation, totaling Rs.33,26,617/-, so, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has urged that the entire payment has been made to the petitioners to purchase the plot.  The possession of the plot has been taken by the complainant. 

5.      By filing the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, the complainant has made the following prayer:-

          “It is therefore respectfully prayed that the complaint may kindly be allowed, the respondents be directed to pay amount of Rs.15.71 lakh in lump sum for delayed period prior to the offer of possession and @ 24% per annum for delayed period from offer of possession till completion of development work relating to her plot and Rs.1.0 lacs for physical and mental harassment and also Rs.50,000/- for litigation expenses in the interest of justice.”

6.      The complainant has sought compensation of Rs.15,71,000/- on account of delay in handing over of the possession. The complainant has already paid the entire amount to the petitioners. She has also taken the possession. There is no controversy or prayer or relief with respect to the plot.  The controversy now is limited to the question whether the petitioners are liable to pay compensation of Rs.15,71,000/- to the complainant or not.  The jurisdiction value cannot go beyond this amount. In this situation, the irresistible conclusion is that the price of plot cannot be counted. Thus, the pecuniary jurisdiction vests with the District Forum.  The District Forum has rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioners.  The revision petition is also dismissed.  It will be open for the District Forum to decide the issue whether the complainant is ‘consumer’ or not after giving opportunities to lead evidence to both the parties.

 

 

Pronounced 26.07.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK