Haryana

StateCommission

CC/203/2016

AMARJIT SINGH DULLET - Complainant(s)

Versus

PIONEER URBAN LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AMARBIR DHALIWAL

31 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No: 203 of 2016

Date of Institution: 27.07.2016

Date of Decision: 14.09.2016

 

Amarjit Singh Dullet s/o Sh. Sarjit Singh Dullet, Resident of House No.89, Rose Avenue, Patiala, Punjab.

                                      Complainant

Versus

1.      Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited, Corporate Office: Paras’s Downtown Centre, 7^th Floor, Gold Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its authorised representative/agent.

2.      Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited, Corporate Office: A-22, Green Park, 3^rd Floor, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110016, through its authorised representative/agent.

                                      Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                              

 

Present:              Shri Amarbir Dhaliwal, Advocate for complainant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

                       The present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Consumer Act’) has been filed by Amarjit Singh Dullet -complainant, averring that he booked a flat with Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite Parties, in the project namely “Pioneer Park, Sector-62, Gurgaon, by depositing Rs.3,07,750/- vide cheque dated 24^th April, 2009.  The Basic Sale Price of the flat was Rs.33,73,500/-. The price of the flat was to be paid by the complainant as per Payment Schedule.  The complainant paid the amount of Rs.34,74,182/- to the builder. The builder allotted flat No.TB-301, Pioneer Park, Sector-61, Gurgaon, to the complainant. A Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-1) was executed between the complainant and the builder on August 22^nd, 2009.  As per clause 9.2 of the agreement, the possession of the flat was to be offered within 36 months from the date of agreement with a grace period of 90 days. The builder did not offer possession within the stipulated time. Hence, the instant complaint seeking direction to the builder to offer possession and to pay compensation.

2.                The question for determination is whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not?

3.                Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) reads 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

(ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and

(b)          to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any con­sumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

 

4.                The complainant has to demonstrate whether he has filed the complaint complaining of defect in goods or deficiency in service. If the grievance pertains to defect of goods, then the value thereof plus compensation shall govern the jurisdiction but if it is with regard to deficiency in service, the complainant has to assess the deficiency in service availed by him.

5.                Indisputably, the relief sought by the complainant is mainly for the delivery of possession of the flat alongwith certain claims incidental to the main claim in terms of interest on the deposited amount and compensation and expenses owing to the non-delivery of possession of the said flat within agreed time.  So, the price of the flat is not be taken into consideration because the flat does not fall within the definition of ‘goods’.  Section 2(i) of the Act states that ‘goods’ means goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which defines ‘goods’ is reproduced as under:-

“goods” means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale;

 

6.                In view of above, the irresistible conclusion is for assessing the value of service, the price of flat cannot be counted because the flat is an immoveable property.         

7.                Situation shall of course be different when claim relates to refund etc of the value of the plot but when allegations are that of delay etc in delivery of possession, it will be simply a case of deficiency in services.  The amount demanded as compensation for deficiency in service shall be the deciding factor for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. 

8.                In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file the same before the appropriate District Forum.  It would be open to the complainant to file an application before the District Forum under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding the period spent before this Commission for the purpose of computation of limitation in terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995)3 S.C.C. 583.

 

 

Announced 14.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL