Ms. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER        

26.03.2024

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. An application moved on behalf of OP u/s 11 of the CP Act, 1986 thereby challenging the maintainability of the present complaint case on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
2. It is stated in the application that the complainant has booked the apartment in the project of the OP titled as “ Omaxe Height” Sonipat, Haryana at the total sale price of Rs. 24,16,579/-. It is further stated that the complainant has prayed for the refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 15,77,220/- along with 10% interest beside this he has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 Lakhs as well as litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 55,000/- as such this Commission has not pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.
3. During the course of the arguments complainant counsel admit that the cost of the flat in question is Rs. 24,16,579/-.
4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant Ms. Jyoti Sheel as well as Sh. Manoj Kumar counsel for OP on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction  and have perused the record.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant had purchased the flat in question for a sum of Rs. 24,16,579/-. The complainant has prayed for refund of sum of Rs. 15,77,220/- along with interest. He also further prayed for compensation and litigation to the tune of Rs. 3,55,000/-
6. Admittedly, in the present complaint case the cost of the flat in question is  Rs. 24,16,579/- and the complainant has prayed for refund of the sum of Rs. 15,77,220/- along with interest and compensation which goes beyond the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Forum i.e. Rs. 20 lacs. In the light of judgment of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016 reported as Manu/CF/0499/16 the present complaint case is not maintainable before this Commission due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as the cost of the flat/plot and relief claimed exceeds the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum. 
7. Accordingly, the complaint be returned to the complainant along with annexures/ documents by retaining a copy of the same for records with liberty to file the complaint before the competent Forum as per the Law. The particulars in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 are as follows.

Date of presentation of complaint :-    26.11.2013

Date of return of complaint :-26.03.2024

Name of complainant :-Mr. Ankush Gupta

8. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced  in open Forum on 26.03.2024.

Sanjay Kumar                       Nipur Chandna                               Rajesh       

President                                     Member                                       Member