Haryana

StateCommission

CC/26/2015

SATYABATI PANDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANAMIKA MEHTA

08 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No     :   26 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16.03.2015

Date of Decision :  08.07.2016

 

Satyabati Panda w/o Sh. Dhirendera Kumar, Resident of House No.500-B, MIG Flats, Sector-61, Chandigarh.

                                      Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through his Managing Director.

2.      M/s Parsvnath Developers, Parsvnath Royals, Behind Society No.105, Sector-20, Panchkula through its Manager.

3.      M/s Parsvnath Developers, Parsvnath Metro Tower, near Shahadra Metro Station, Shahadra, Delhi through its Manager.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate for Complainant.

                             Shri A.S. Khara, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Satyabati Panda-Complainant, has filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘the Act’), averring that she booked flat No.T87-G01 with Parsvnath Developers Limited-Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Builder’), in their project ‘King City’ at Rajpura, Punjab on October 3^rd, 2007, vide application Annexure-B. The basic price of the flat was Rs.19,53,275/-. A Flat Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-1) was executed on October 3^rd, 2007. The complainant paid Rs.75,000/- on June 11^th, 2007 and Rs.1,06,700/- on September, 2007 vide receipts Annexure C-2. Later she made payments on different dates. In all, she has paid Rs.12,32,024/-.  It is stated that the complainant raised loan of Rs.3,78,444/- from Fullerton and Rs.3,36,492/- from DHFL to make payment to the builder. As per Clause 10 (a) of the agreement, the construction of the flat/project was to be completed within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction extendable by another six months. However, the builder not completing the construction, the complainant filed complaint seeking refund of the amount deposited by her, that is, Rs.12,32,024/- besides compensation under different heads in the shape of rent , interest etcetera. The complainant sought directions to the builder/opposite parties to pay Rs.54,38,528/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and Rs.50,000/- for wrongly charging for the parking area.

2.      The Opposite Parties/builder contested complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections regarding pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this Commission stating that the flat was to be constructed at Rajpura, Punjab and Regional Office of the opposite parties was at Chandigarh. The complainant failed to make payment of instalments. It was a Construction Linked Payment Plan and as such the complaint is not maintainable.

3.      Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

4.      The complainant having booked the flat besides other terms and conditions of the agreement, were not denied. It was submitted that the builder/opposite parties have commenced the construction and it was going to complete within the project schedule. However, due to global recession, the construction was delayed. The receipt of payment was admitted.  

5.      At the threshold of arguments, learned counsel for the builder/opposite parties submitted that the price of the flat was only Rs.19,53,275/- while the complainant has paid Rs.12,32,024/-. Thus, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that since the amount claimed is more than Rs.20.00 lacs, therefore, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

7.      The Flat Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-1) is on the file. As per Clause 2(a) of the agreement, the price of the flat is only Rs.19,53,275/-. Clause 2(a) is reproduced as under:-

“2(a)   The Basic Price of the Flat shall be Rs.19,53,275/- (Rupees Nineteen lacs Fifty Three Thousands, two hundreds and seventy five only) calculated at the rate of Rs.1236.25/- per sq. ft. (equivalent to Rs.13,307.50 per sq. mtr.) of super built-up area of the Flat to be reduced or increased corresponding to actual super area of the Flat at the time of final measurement on completion of the Flat/Complex. The price of the Flat is inclusive of price of proportionate interest in the common areas and facilities, which shall be determined only on final measurements on completion of the building.”

8.      Indisputably, the complainant has paid total amount of Rs.12,32,024/-.  The only plea raised by the complainant is that since the amount claimed is more than Rs.20.00 lacs, therefore, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

9.      Mere whimsical and hypothetical claims cannot confer jurisdiction, it has to be logic based. Merely because the complainant claimed more than Rs.20.00 lacs by exaggerating the claim under different heads of compensation just to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission would not confer the jurisdiction of the State Commission because the price of the flat is Rs.19,53,275/-, the complainant has paid Rs.12,32,024/-. As per Section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the State Commission is up to Rs.20.00 lacs. Section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Act is reproduced as under:-

17.    Jurisdiction of the State Commission. — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a)     to entertain—

(i)  complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and”

 

10.    The complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora by either grossly over-valuing or under-valuing the claim. The compensation claimed has to be commensurate with the loss or injury suffered by the complainant. It cannot be arbitrary, imaginary or whimsical for a remote cause.

11.    The precise question of pecuniary jurisdiction fell for consideration before Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments.        In Kumari Femy and others vs. Kavitha V.K. (Dr.) and others, 1 (2013) CPJ 34 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission by relying upon Ratna Ghosh and another vs. Dr. P.K. Agarwal and others, II(2010) CPJ 204 (NC)=Civil Appeal No.6409 of 2010, decided on 6.8.2010 (S.C.) and Sujata Nath vs. Popular Nursing Home and others, III(2011) CPJ 239 ((NC)=Civil Appeal No.8642 of 2011 decided on 14.10.2011 (S.C.), did not entertain the complaint observing that the compensation claimed was highly exaggerated and was not borne out from the material placed on record.

12.    The issue in hand was also decided by a bench of Hon’ble National Commission headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President, wherein while dismissing Consumer Complaint No.383 of 2013, Indrani Chatterjee and another vs. Amri Hospitals alongwith fifteen other complaints, vide common order dated November 7^th, 2014, it was observed as under:-

“We are of the opinion that, as at present, the complainants have not been able to satisfy us as to on what basis the claims ranging between Rs.7,00.00,000/- to Rs.12,00,00,000/-, have been quantified. We are convinced that the claims have been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission”.

 

13.    Based on the above discussion and relying on the rulings cited above, this Commission is of the view that the claim of the complainant is highly exaggerated and not borne out from the material placed on the record. The complainant has unreasonably inflated the claim for bringing her complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission by misusing the process of law. So, it is held that the instant complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint before the Appropriate District Forum.

 

 

 

 

Announced 08.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL