PARAMJEET SINGH filed a consumer case on 18 Feb 2016 against PREMIA PROJECTS LTD. & ANR. in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is CC/22/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 02 Mar 2016.
Delhi
StateCommission
CC/22/2016
PARAMJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)
Versus
PREMIA PROJECTS LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)
YASHOVIR SINGH
18 Feb 2016
ORDER
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Arguments: 18.02.2016
Date of Decision: 22.02.2016
Complaint No. 22/2016
In the matter of:
Paramjeet Singh,
R/o A-108, Sector-19,
Noida-201301, UP. …..........Complainant
Versus
Premia Projects Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director
3/18/4F, Block-3, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
Ace La Casa Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
D-67, 3rd Floor,
Noida-201301, UP. ….....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)
The case of the complainant is that in February, 2013 he saw online development regarding project ‘Premia Corporate City’ of OP-1. He made a call at the phone number mentioned therein and was asked to contact OP-2. OP-2 claimed that it is channel partner of OP-1 in the said project. Complainant booked corporate studio of 300 sq.ft. for his personal use against the total consideration of Rs.19 lacs in the project at plot No.201, Knowledge Park-5, Greater Noida (West). OP offered assured monthly return @18% per annum on the deposited amount. Complainant was assured to get the possession up to the end of 2015. He was told after paying 50% of the total amount, builder buyer agreement would be executed containing terms and conditions as told to the complainant. He paid Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque and Rs.5,00,000/- lacs in cash and got the receipt. He requested OP-2 for execution of builder buyer agreement but they kept on delaying execution by making vague excuses. He contacted office of OP-1 where Mr. Saurab, Vice President told that as per their record only Rs.5,00,000/- had been paid. He was asked to clear this. He made written complaint and that record as desired Mr. Saurab Singh, he gave written request for adjustment of Rs.5,00,000/- which was reflected in record of OP-1. Complainant did the needful. Fresh customer information form was prepared. Price of corporate studio including car parking was reduced to Rs.13,56,600/-. He paid additional amount of Rs.9.03 lac he was given allotment letter of Unit No.634 in Tower-A but MOU/builder buyer agreement was not executed. He served notice dated 27.02.2015 to which he received reply dated 19.03.2015. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs.19.03 lacs alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of payment and Rs.10,000,00/- as compensation.
We have heard the counsel for the complainant on admission of complaint. Project is located in Noida, Corporate office of OP-1 is in Noida as per receipt copy of which placed at page-14. Same is the fake of receipts copies of which are placed at page-15 to 18. It is not clear from where complainant has picked up the address of OP-1 of East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Thus, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction.
Another fact is that booking was done with OP-1. There is no document to show involvement of OP-2. There is no privity of contact between complainant and OP-2. Hence, OP-2 cannot be roped in.
Yet another deficiency in case of the complainant is that no builder buyer agreement has yet been executed. Without that no relationship of consumer is established. The same is sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction of consumer court. The complaint is dismissed in limini.
A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)
(S. C. Jain)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.