Delhi

StateCommission

CC/972/2016

AMIT GUMBER & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

V.S DUBEY

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                Date of Arguments: 22.09.16

Date of Decision:    29.09.16

 

Complaint No. 972/2016

In the matter of:

           

1. Shri Amit Gumber

S/o Shri Jagdish Chander Gumber

                            

2. Smt. Manisha Gumber

W/o Shri Amit Gumber

Both R/o H.No.3, Sagart Sadan 113

I.P.Extn., Patparganj

•  

Through their SPA

Shivali Dhingra

D/o Mr.Devender Dhingra

R/o C-2, Press Apartment

Plot 23, I.P.Estension

•  

Delhi-110092                                                      ......    Complainants

                                                Versus

 

 

1. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Through its General Manager/

Manager concerned

Parsvnath Metro Tower

Near Shahdara Metro Station

Delhi-110032

 

2. Commercial Manager

6^th Floor, Arunachal

19, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001                                                     …...Respondents                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

CORAM

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

 

•  

 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

2041079862166.  

 

            The present complaint has been filed for directing OP 1 to give possession of flat No. T-5 (Now T-6) – 402, Parsvnath Castle, GT Road, Rajpura, Punjab and pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the complainant as rental amount from  2011 till handing over of possession of flat.  In the alternative they have prayed for direction to pay Rs. 24,74,240/-/double amount of the amount paid by complainant. Rs. 5,00,000/- for travel and other related expenses, Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages for mental, physical and economical pain and agony.   

 

2.        I straightway put a question to the counsel for the complainant that Ist relief claimed by him is possession.  The price of the flat was   Rs.13,49,000/- and so the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction should be that amount.  He replied that alternative prayer made by him is or Rs. 24,74,240/-.  There is no clause in the buyer’s agreement to pay double of amount deposited by the complainant.  Hence the same is beyond comprehension.

 

3. Faced with this situation the counsel for the complainant submitted that earlier he had filed a complaint before District Forum, Nand Nagri which was withdrawn for being filed before this commission.  He submitted that he has so mentioned in para 16 of the complaint but he has not filed copy of the order of district forum.  On my insistence he  had to file copy of order dated 24.03.15 passed in complaint case No. 493/14.

 

4. The said order simply records factum of withdrawal of complaint after reserving the rights of the complainant,  what right is not clear. It does not refer to permission to file  a fresh complaint on the same cause of action.  It also does not mention that district forum was of the opinion that complaint was exceeding its pecuniary jurisdiction.  There may be

other reason why  complainant withdrew complaint before district forum.

 

5.    It may be added that earlier complaint was withdrawn in March 2015 and now this complaint has been filed after 18 months.

 

6. Counsel for the complainant gave a very funny explanation that since the complainants are residing abroad i.e. Ireland, the  complainant had to wait.  In this regard he drew my attention towards special power of attorney placed at pages 20 and 22.  If the complaint can be filed through attorney now, it could be filed through attorney earlier also.

 

7. It is useful to mention here that  address of the complainant mentioned in the complaint is that of I.P Extension, Patparganj, Delhi.  Their address of Ireland appears in power of attorney only.

 

8. The complaint is rejected in limini for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.