Delhi

New Delhi

CC/680/2015

Jagdish Chander Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parsvnath Developers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.680/2015                                Dated:

In the matter of:

 

Jagdish Chandar Singhal

…Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s Parsvnath Developers Pvt. Ltd.

… Opposite Party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

 

The OP has moved an application for dismissal of complaint on the ground of Pecuniary Jurisdiction, stating that the total cost of the plot and relief claimed exceeds the  pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. Rs. 20 Lacs, as such, this Forum does not have Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, in the light 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. During the course of arguments, it is admitted that the cost of unit in question and reliefs claim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, i.e. Rs. 20 Lacs.

It is further stated by the counsel for the complainant that although the cost of the plot relief claimed exceeds the  pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, but in the prayer clause the complainant has prayed for the refund  of the sum of Rs. 7 lacs alongwith interest @24% from the date of payment till realization and has not prayed for the continuation of the booking in question and as such the 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 is not applicable in his case. He also did not want to go ahead with the property in question and only wants the refund of the money deposited with the OP. Ms Kanchan, counsel for complainant also  mentioned about the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, author by Sh. Prem Narain the single Ld. Member titled as Naina semiconductors Ltd. Vs. Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers Pvt.Ltd. decided on 04.09.2018.

 After considering, this judgment is “per incuriam” against the ratio of the Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s judgment, as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in 1^st Appeal No.2080 of 2017 titiled as Vikul Kumar Gupta vs M/S. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers decided on 20.02.2018

In view of the above discussion, the cost of the flat/plot and relief claimed  exceeds the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum.  Accordingly, the application filed by the OP is allowed and 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 same before the competent Forum as per the Law. The particulars in the light of the judgement 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 :-    13/10/2015.

 

• Date of return of complaint :-                28/11/2018.

 

• Name of complainant :-         Jagdish Chander Singhal

Copy of the order be given Dasti to the parties.  File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced  in open Forum on  28/11/2018. .

 

 

 (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                             PRESIDENT

                                                   (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                         

                                                                          MEMBER