DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 686/15
- Shri Arun Tandon
S/o Late Shri Ram Das Tandon
R/o B-23, Indraprastha Apartment
Plot No. 114, I.P. Extension, Delhi – 110 092
- Ms. Deepali Tandon
D/o Shri Arun Tandon
R/o B-23, Indraprastha Apartment
Plot No. 114, I.P. Extension, Delhi – 110 092 ….Complainants
Vs.
- Shreya Developwell Private Limited
Through its Managing Director
R.O. A-8, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-92
- Sangwan Heights Private Limited
Through its Managing Director
Off: 124, AGCR Emclave, Delhi - 92 ….Opponents
Date of Institution:11.09.2015
Judgment Reserved for : 15.09.2016
Judgment Passed on : 16.09.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainants Shri Arun Tandon and Ms. Deepali Tandon have filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against M/s. Shreya Developwell Private Limited (OP-1) and M/s. Sangwan Heights Private Limited (OP-2).
2. The facts in brief are that on 12.09.2006, Mr. Greesh Kakkar booked a flat of area admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. in the project viz. “Hindan Heights” situated at NH-58, behind RKG Engineering College, Noor Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) of M/s. Shreya Developwell Private Limited (OP-1). This flat was booked through Jai Mata Properties on payment of registration amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- vide cheque no. 178996 dated 12.09.2006, drawn on Canara Bank. The possession was to be handed over after three years. Demand was raised by M/s. Shreya Developwell Private Limited (OP-1) through their letter of dated 15.12.2006, 13.02.2007 and 26.09.2007. Flat No. 6 on Jasmine – II, upper ground floor in project “Hindon Heights” at NH-58, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad was allotted to the first allottee Mr. Greesh Kakkar. Total price of the flat was Rs. 20,30,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- was paid and the balance amount of Rs. 15,80,000/- was payable as per plan.
Since the first allottee was not able to continue his booking, the complainant agreed for its purchase and requested for its transfer. The said flat was transferred in the name of the complainant. On 28.12.2009, complainant -1 paid an amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- in cash on account of booking and OP-1 acknowledged the same by issuing receipt no. 2058 dated 28.12.2009. Further on 01.01.2010, complainant -1 paid an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- vide cheque /DD No. 298604, drawn on Standard Charted Bank. Again, on 01.01.2010, complainant-1 paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- vide cheque/DD No. 986396, drawn on Punjab National Bank. Subsequently, on 31.01.2011, complainant-1 paid an amount of Rs. 75,000/- in cash on account of installment and service tax for which OP-1 acknowledged by issuing receipt no. 2767 dated 31.01.2011. Again on 01.07.2011, complainant–1 paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash on account of installment and service tax , which was acknowledged by OP-1 by issuing receipt no 2848 dated 01.07.2011. Furthermore, on 31.01.2012, complainant-1 made a payment on account of installment, PLC and EDC. The amount of Rs. 76,309/- in cash on account of installment and service was acknowledged by OP-1 by issuing receipt no. 2926 dated 31.01.2012 and an amount of Rs. 23,691/- on account of PLC installment and service tax was acknowledged by OP-1 by issuing receipt no. 2927 dated 31.01.2012. An amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on account of EDC in cash was acknowledged by OP-1 by issuing receipt no. 2928 dated 31.01.2012.
It has further been stated that OP-1 changed booking of the complainants and shifted it to another location and sent a letter dated 31.01.2012 to the complainants that their booking was shifted from flat no. 06 in tower Jasmine-II to flat No. 102 in tower Jasmine-I. Further, OP-1 through letter dated 31.01.2012 adjusted an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in new changed shifted location flat No., 102 in tower Jasmine-I (file no. HH1158). OP-1 changed booking of the complainants as there was no construction in tower Jasmine-II. The complainants did not object and agreed for the change of location of the flat.
It has further been stated that OP-2 initially promised to complainant-1 that the total cost of the flat was Rs. 20,30,000/-, but at the time of giving allotment letter, OP-1 with the ulterior motive to earn profit increased the price and demanded Rs. 23,11,250/-. The complainants agreed and accepted to the increase in price and on 31.01.2012, executed and signed the Allotment Letter. It has further been stated that again on 13.12.2012, OP-1 demanded an amount of Rs. 2,80,644/- through demand letter dated 13.12.2012. It has further been stated that OP-1 informed the complainant through a letter that they were not in a position to complete the project and have entered into a joint venture with Sangwan Group i.e. OP-2 for completion of the project. The allotment of flat was subject to fresh terms and conditions. When on 28.03.2015, complainant-1 went to the project site, located at Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, OP-2 did not inform anything related to date and possession of the flat, but on the contrary, started demanding more money and asked complainant-1 to pay additional charges to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Complainant-1 objected to this. Complainant-1 sent a letter of dated 13.04.2015 to OP-2 informing them that the additional charges to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- were unfair, uncalled and they were not ready to pay the additional amount.
It has further been stated that it was OP-1, who delayed the project and as per clause 12 and 12.1 of the agreement dated 31.01.2013, OP-1 was liable to pay Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. to the super area of the flat for delay in the completion of construction. It has further been stated that instead of performing their part and fulfilling the commitment as promised of handing over of the possession in three years by OP-1, OP-2 malafidely and with oblique motive was asking for additional charges to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-, which was unethical and against the business policies. It has been stated that due to the conduct of OP-1, complainant-1 has suffered great mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss and humiliation. Thus, the complainant has prayed for possession of the flat; penalty of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. of the super area of the flat for delay in completion of the construction, as promised by OP-1; waiver of unwarranted, uncalled demand of additional charges to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-; compensation amount to Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment; Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of litigation and future/pendent interest of 18% p.a. and penalty for delay in completion of the construction till actual possession of flat.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to M/s. Shreya Developwell Private Limited (OP-1) and M/s. Sangwan Heights Private Limited (OP-2). However, they did not put the appearance and were proceeded ex-parte.
4. In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined herself. She has deposed on affidavit. She has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint. She has also got exhibited copies of documents such as Registration Form (Ex.CW1/1), cheque bearing no. 178996 (Ex.CW1/2), copies of letters (Ex.CW1/3), copy of letter (Ex.CW1/4), copies of receipts for making the payments (Ex.CW1/5), letter written by OP-1 for changing the booking of the complainant and shifting to another location (Ex.CW1/6), copy of transfer of amount (Ex.CW1/7), copy of agreement executed between complainant and M/s. Shreya Developwell Private Limited (Ex.CW1/8), demand letter (Ex.CW1/9), letter written by OP-1 stating that they have entered into a joint venture with Sangwan Group (OP-2) (Ex.CW1/10) and letter sent by the complainant to OP-2 with regard to additional charges of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Ex.CW1/11) etc.
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. First and foremost point that arises for consideration in this complaint is as to whether this forum was having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. If a look is made to pars 35 of the complaint, it has been stated that the value of the said residential flat was Rs. 20,30,000/-.
Though, the complainant has claimed possession of the flat alongwith other reliefs in terms of money, the fact that the value of the said residential flat has been stated to be Rs. 20,30,000/-, the complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum. Hence, on this score, the complaint of the complainant goes.
6. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that his forum was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the value of the residential flat has been more than Rs. 20,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 20,30,000/-. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
