Delhi

StateCommission

CC/11/237

MANISH KR. MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                               

Date of Argument: 04.03.2016

Date of Decision:28.03.2016

Complaint No.237/11

 

In the matter of:

 

Manish Kumar Mittal,

S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan,

R/o T3-101, Parsvnath Prestige-II,

Plot No.002, Sector-93A,

Noida-201301.                                                                 ....Complainant.

 

251648299.  

 

1. Parsvnath Developer Limited,

Through its Chairman and Managing Director,

Parsvnath Metro Tower,

Near Shahdara Metro Station,

•  

 

2. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA)

Through its Chairman and Chief Operating Officer,

Administrative Complex, Sector-6,

Noida-201301.                                                                 .....Opp. Parties

                                           

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The present complaint is a unique case in which the complainant booked a flat No. T3-101 in Group Housing Society developed by OP-1. The complainant himself mentioned in para-7 of the complaint that earlier he filed Complaint No. 218/08 before District Forum at Gautam Budh Nagar against OP-1 seeking possession of the flat  alongwith other relief. The said complaint was allowed by District Forum and possession of the said flat was delivered to the complainant. The said complaint was finally dismissed by State Commission, Lucknow vide order dated 13.01.2011 which has been affirmed by National Commission.  The complainant was not entering into the details of the said case as same was irrelevant.

 

2. Now the controversy raised by complainant is that he sought information under RTI Act which was not provided. He had to file an appeal. He also filed police complaint vide FIR No.65/11 at PS- Phase-II, Noida. FIR was registered under orders of Ld. ACJM-I, Gautam Budh Nagar u/s 403, 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC. The OP-1 was liable to refund Rs.8,32,648/- charged by it illegally towards basic price and one time lease rent for non-existent area, OP charged interest @24% per annum amounting to Rs.18,178.54/- for delay in disbursement of home loan, complainant was paying interest @14.5% per annum towards home loan  to the financing bank.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.8,32,648/-, consolidated amount of Rs.2 lacs for not adhering to specifications of flat and handing over the possession of the flat in poor condition, Rs.5 lacs on account  of harassment and mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards expenses.

 

3. OP-1 filed reply raising preliminary objection that complainant is engaged in forum shopping.  He has no locus standi to institute the present complaint, in view of the order dated 13.01.2011 passed by State Commission, Lucknow vide which the order of District Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar was set aside and complaint was dismissed. The complaint involved complicated questions of facts and law which need to be proved by leading detailed oral as well as documentary evidence. Proceedings before the Consumer Courts are essentially summary in nature and dispute necessarily requires detailed trial and cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure. The complaint is barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. On merits, it is stated that wife of complainant filed Civil Suit  dated 07.01.2010 against OPs seeking injunction against the complainant claiming exclusive possession of flat and injunction against OP from delivering possession of the flat to the complainant or any other person. The said suit was still pending and copy of the plaint of the said suit was attached with the written statement.

 

4. Complainant filed rejoinder. Thereafter, he filed an application for appointment of local commissioner i.e. Civil Architect for inspection of record and opinion on technical  terminologies.  The same has been replied by OP-1.

 

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. Both the OPs have filed separate affidavits in their evidence.

 

6. The complainant has filed written submissions. OP-1 has filed written submissions.

 

7. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. It is not clear as to how the second complaint is maintainable when complainant had already filed one complaint in District Forum-Gautam Budh Nagar and lost there in.  It is also not clear as to how he has created the territorial jurisdiction of two different courts for the same flat. Either it could be at Gautam Budh Nagar or in Delhi.

 

8. Even if the complaint is treated as one for remaining relief regarding excess area which came to the knowledge of complainant subsequently in reply under RTI Act, the present complaint is barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Complainant cannot vex OP twice for same cause of action. He had not reserved his right and sought permission from first court in Gautam Budh Nagar to sue for relief omitted by him initially.

 

9. Further suit filed by wife of complainant is pending disputing the entitlement of complainant to possession of flat.  FIR is pending in which allegations of forgery are involved.  All these show that complicated questions are involved and same are beyond the jurisdiction of consumer courts.

 

10. This Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Since total of all reliefs claimed is less than Rs.20 lacs which is within pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum.

 

11. To sum up, the only conclusion is that complaint is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed.

 

12. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

13. File be consigned to Record Room.

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                    (S. C. Jain)

Member​