Haryana

StateCommission

A/1100/2017

M/S MAPSKO BUILDERS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJEEV KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SACHIN MITTAL

14 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1100 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 11.09.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 14.01.2019

 

1.      M/s Mapsko Builders Private Limited, 52, North Avenue road, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi-26 through its authorized signatory Sh.Vipin Kumar.

2.      M/s Mapsko Builders Private Limited, Mapsko City Homes Project, Sector 26-26-A and 27, Sonipat NH-1, Sonipat through its authorized signatory Sh.Vipin Kumar.

…..Appellants

Versus

Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Sh.Dhoom Singh Dadar, R/o H.No.958, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Sonipat.

                   …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                              Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:              Shri Gaurav Arora, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent already ex parte.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a residential floor bearing No.219 first Floor in ME Block, having measuring 369 sq. yards for a sum of Rs.36,93,846/- in the project Mapsko City Homes. As per agreement dated 07.11.2012, he transferred the property in his name.  The complainant observed that construction work at the site was below standard and the material used at the site was inferior and substandard quality.  He submitted a complaint to the O.Ps., but of no use.  O.Ps. demanded Rs.3,80,799/-, which was deposited to the respondents on 12,.08.2014.  O.Ps. again demanded Rs.6,05,776/- and complainant raised objection about the above said demand, which was unreasonable and unjustified.  The O.ps. delayed the project and failed to give the possession in time.  As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the construction was to be completed by the O.Ps. within a period of 18 months from the date of signing of the agreement i.e. 07.11.2012 with grace period of six months.  The possession of the floor was to be given to the complainant on or before 07.11.2014.  The O.Ps. again demanded Rs.4,14,754/- as possession amount, water and sewerage connection charges, Rs.1,51,864/- towards club member ship charges, which was deposited by the complainant on 11.07.2016 with the O.Ps, but, the possession  was not delivered. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps.-appellant by filing a written version before the District Forum, in which, they stated that the property was transferred in favour of the complainant on 21.05.2014.  O.P.No.1 had already completed the development work at the spot and has delivered the possession of more than 300 plots to the allottees.  There was a delay in completing the construction of the floor as  Rajcon construction company has left the work without any reason. The material used by the OP was of very high quality. the possession was already given on 22.09.2016 to the complainant. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) partly allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 08.08.2017 and  directed as under:-

“The respondents are liable to pay interest @ 09% per annum on the deposited amount w.e.f. 07.11.2014 till 22.09.2016 (the date when the possession of the floor was given to the complainant. We also held the respondents to pay the house rent to the complainant at the rate of Rs.8000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2014 till 31.03.2016.  We also direct the respondents to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for causing harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps-appellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Gaurav Arora the learned counsel for the appellants. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      As far as the purchase of the flat is concerned it  is not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that flat was re-allotted to the complainant.  It is also not disputed that complainant purchased the residential floor for a sum of Rs.36,93,846/-.

7.      It has been pointedly argued by Sh.Gaurav Arora, the learned counsel for the appellants that due to the pecuniary jurisdiction, the learned District Forum was not competent to entertain the complaint, as such, and to decide accordingly. In this regard he has placed his reliance upon the celebrated authorities of Hon’ble National Commission in  R.P.No.1348 of 2014 titled as TDI Vs. Pradeep Mathur decided on 16.10.2015 and C.C. No.97 of 2016 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016 and in F.A. No.1194 of 2016 Santosh Arya Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited decided on 07.10.2016.

8.      In view of the above submission and keeping in view the admitted facts and since the basic and foremost question arises for adjudication of the learned Distt. Forum, Sonepat as well as for this Commission is as to whether the learned District forum, Sonepat was having the pecuniary jurisdiction in order to deal with the complaint and as such, and then passed the appropriate order?  As per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in TDI Vs. Pradeep Mathur. Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Santosh Arya Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited (Supra’s) case.  The matter has been dealt by the Hon’ble National Commission and it has been observed for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction,  the value of goods or services and the amount of the compensation is to be taken into consideration and in fact the jurisdiction exceeds Rs.20,00,000/- in that eventuality, the learned District Forum would not be having the pecuniary jurisdiction in order to entertain the complaint and then to decide accordingly.   Since the total amount exceeds Rs.36,93,846/- and as such, the learned District  lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and then to decide accordingly because of the lacks jurisdiction, the learned District forum was not competent to entertain and then to decide the complaint and as such, while setting aside the impugned order dated  08.08.2017 passed by learned district forum Sonepat on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, the complaint stands dismissed and consequent thereto, the appeal preferred by Mapsko Builder stands allowed. The liberty is given to the complainant-respondent to file afresh case before competent fora within a period of 90 days from today.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

January 14th, 2019     Manjula                Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                          Addl.Bench                    Addl.Bench                 

S.K.