Haryana

StateCommission

CC/230/2015

SACHIN MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

VISHAL AGGARWAL

22 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No     :      230 of 2015

Date of Institution:      28.12.2015

Date of Decision :       22.01.2016

 

 

 

1.     Sachin Mittal son of Shri M.C. Mittal through G.P.A. Holder Shri M.C. Mittal.

2.     Urmil Mittal wife of M.C. Mittal

Both Residents of B-301, Residency Grand, Plot No.5, Sector 52, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                      Complainants

Versus

 

M/s Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Limited, having their registered office at Paras Downtown Center, 5^th and 7^th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon-122002.

                                      Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

 

Present:               Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for Complainants.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

 

                       

          Sachin Mittal and his mother Urmil Mittal-complainants have filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that Rajesh Loomba and Adiya Loomba booked Flat No.104, Tower G, First Floor, Sector 61, Golf Course, Extension Road, Gurgaon measuring 2300 sq. ft. in the month of March, 2010 with M/s Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite Party.  The flat was transferred in the name of complainants on April 02^nd, 2013.  The sale consideration of the flat was Rs.62,95,000/-.  Rs.45.00 lacs were paid by the earlier purchasers and the amount of Rs.11,92,672/- each were paid in two installments on October 06^th, 2015 by the complainants. 

2.      It is further the case of complainants that as per Buyers Agreement dated March 03^rd, 2010 (Annexure C-1), the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 36 months of the execution of the agreement subject to the payment of entire amount due and payable by the purchasers to vendor.  It was also agreed upon that  builder would pay charges at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. of the super area for the period of delay in offering the delivery of the flat beyond the period mentioned in the Buyers Agreement.  The total amount payable to the builder was Rs.62,95,000/- out of which Rs.56,52,652/­- have already been paid but the builder has failed to complete the construction.

3.      By filing the present complaint, the complainants seek the following reliefs, which are reproduced in extenso:-

          (i)      The opposite party may be directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant from the date of payment till the date of possession.

          (ii)      The opposite party may be directed to pay the entire amount of compensation due alongwith interest @ 18% per annum i.e. Rs.18,86,000/- (2300x20x41) (upto December 2015) and also further payment for delay till the possession of the apartment is handed over, as mentioned in the agreement itself which is payable by the company for the inordinate delay caused in handing over the possession.

          (iii)     The opposite party be directed to withdraw the excess charges which are not chargeable to the complainants the possession having not been handed over to him.

          (iv)    The opposite party be directed not charge for area more than 2300 sq. ft. being in violation of the agreement.

          (v)     The opposite party be directed to complete the construction in all respects before handing over possession and accordingly complainants are not liable to pay for any electricity backup charges etc.

          (vi)    The opposite party be directed to pay rent @ Rs.35000/- per month for the last two years which has been paid by the complainants for taking the house on rent alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the time the possession of the apartment is handed over to the complainants.

          (vii)    The opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as costs towards harassment caused to the complainants for which the opposite party is solely responsible.

          (viii)   That an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation be awarded to the complainants as litigation cost.

          (ix)    Any other order or direction the learned Forum may deem fit.

 

4.      The question whether or not the claim made in the complaint is realistic, exaggerated or excessive, can be determined after leading evidence but where ex-facie the claim appears extraordinarily high and without any basis, the consumer complaint cannot be entertained.

5.      It is well settled principle of law that 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 for a remote cause.

6.      Hon’ble National Commission in Kumari Femy and others vs. Kavitha V.K. (Dr.) and others, 1 (2013) CPJ 34 (NC), did not entertain the complaint observing that the compensation claimed was highly exaggerated and did not borne out by the material placed on record.

7.      In Kumari Femy’s case (Supra) reliance was placed 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.).       

8.      The issue in hand was also recently decided by a bench of Hon’ble National Commission headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President, 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, observing 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”.

 

 9.     On a careful analysis of the principles stated in the foregoing cases and having perused the case file, this Commission is of the view that the claim of the complainant is highly exaggerated and not borne out by the material placed on the record. The complainant has unreasonably inflated the claim for bringing his complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The instant complaint is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

10.    Hence, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file the same before the Appropriate Authority.

11.    Copy of this order be sent to all the District Fora in the State of Haryana.

 

 

Announced 22.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL/UK