JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL) The complainant purchased a residential plot from the OP in a project, namely, Omaxe City Bahadurgah” for a consideration of Rs.65,70,000/-. The possession of the plot has already been delivered to the complainant though there was a delay in delivery of the possession. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) Direct OP to pay compensation for delay in offer of possession of plot @18% RA. counted from the promised date of possession till when registered conveyance was signed and possession handed over; (ii) Direct OP to pay compensation for prematurely recovering the final amount of Rs. 4,03,834 (being the final 5% of cost) in June 2016 and then prematurely getting complainant to purchase stamp paper and pay registration charges on December 2016 from the date Complainant had to make such premature payments till 22.05.2017 when registered conveyance was signed; (iii) Direct OP to pay compensation @10% in term of clause 12 of BBA, on the excess principal refunded on account of reduction of plot, such interest to be calculated from the date of excess recovery in 2012 till the date registered conveyance was executed on 22.05.2017; (iv) Direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3,14,000/(rupees three lakhs and fourteen thousand only) being the sum that would have to be spent in levelling the undeveloped plot delivered by Complainant;
(v) Direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/by way of mental harassment and suffering and unfair trade practices.”
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the question as to whether this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not. In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction if the value of the goods or service as the case may be and the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint exceeds Rs.1 crore. As held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission dated 7.10.2016 in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the value of the services in such cases would mean the sale consideration agreed between the parties. Though the complainant has claimed compensation in the form of interest @ 18% p.a. neither this Commission nor the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation in the form of interest at a rate higher than 12% p.a. in a case where the allottee has taken possession of the plot/flat allotted to him and is seeking compensation for the delay in delivery of the possession. If compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% p.a. is calculated, the aforesaid amount would come to less than Rs.25 lakhs. If the aforesaid compensation is added to the agreed sale consideration of Rs.65,70,000/-, the aggregate would come to about Rs.90 lakhs. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs.3,14,000/- on the ground that the aforesaid amount would be spent by her in levelling the undeveloped plot. Even if the aforesaid amount is added to the figure of about Rs.90 lakhs, the aggregate would come to about Rs.93 lakhs. This Commission, therefore, lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. Though if compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% p.a. is awarded, it would be inclusive of agony and mental harassment alleged to have been suffered by the complainant, even if the amount of Rs.2 lakhs claimed on the aforesaid account is added, the resultant figure would not come to more than Rs.1 crore. The complainant has also claimed interest on the amount which she has paid to the OP though the principal amount has been adjusted. Even if the said interest is added, the aggregate would not come to more than Rs.1 crore. 3. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint is hereby dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint or to avail such other remedy as may be open to the complainant in law. |
