DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.550 of 2015

                                            Date of institution:  15.10.2015                                         Date of decision   :  05.12.2017

Mohinder Pal son of Kishore Chand, resident of # 22, Type III SLIET Campus Longowal, District Sangrur, Punjab.

                                                          ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.) SCO No.672, Sector 70, First Floor, Mohali, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its President/Authorised signatory.

                                                      ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member         

Present:    Shri Jai Pal Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                None for the OP.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Mohinder Pal has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             In response to the advertisements of the OP for sale of residential plots in the project named as Sky Rock Welfare Society at Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar, the complainant booked 150 sq. yard residential plot with the OP  @ Rs.12,000/- per sq. yard in its project namely Sky Rock City Welfare Society at 111-112, SAS Nagar, Mohali.  The complainant paid Rs.5,000/- vide receipt dated 01.08.2011 towards registration/membership of the OP. Thereafter as per terms and conditions mentioned in the registration slip, the complainant paid total amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the OP vide receipt dated 05.01.2012. At the time of registration of the plot, the OP assured the complainant that the physical possession of the plot shall be handed over within two years from the date of registration. It was also assured that in case the applicant does not want to continue even after paying some installments, the OP will refund the entire amount with interest after three years from the date of registration/membership.  The OP had also assured that the project is approved by the appropriate authorities and all approvals, clearances had been issued in the name of the OP.  After payment of first installment, the complainant came to know that OP is not approved by GMADA and the complainant sent letter dated 26.09.2012 to the OP that he is liable to make the payment only when GMADA issues licenses for development to the OP.  At the time of registration, the OP claimed that the society is cooperative house building society and registered under cooperative societies Act but it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the society is not registered under cooperative societies Act and it is simple welfare society registered under Societies Act, 1860. The complainant visited the OP many times but no response was given to him. Till date the possession of the plot has not been given to the complainant. However, the OP had not refunded the amount. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation; to refund him Rs.5,000/- paid towards membership, to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.             The complaint has been contested by the OP by filing reply in which it has been pleaded that the complaint is pre-mature and is not maintainable. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is pleaded that the society had allotted provisional plot number to the complainant and the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the society.  The physical possession of the plot cannot be handed over to the complainant because he has not paid the full amount alongwith other dues to the society.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on his part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW-1/1; copies of receipt Ex.C-1 and C-2;  demand notice Ex.C-3; letter Ex.C-4; application form Ex.C-5; letters Ex.C-6 to C-12; provisional allotment letter Ex.C-13;; memorandum of society Ex.C-14 and license to develop colony Ex.C-15. In rebuttal, the counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Navjeet Singh its President Ex.OP-1/1; terms and conditions Ex.OP-1; license Ex.OP-2; three orders of the Hon’ble National Commission Mark-A to Mark-C and one order of the Hon’ble State Commission Mark-D.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the file. However, we find that the present complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  As per the complainant he has booked 150 sq. yard plot with the OP @ Rs.12,000/- per sq. yard which comes out to Rs.18,00,000/-. Although the complainant has paid only Rs.4,50,000/- to the OP towards sale consideration of the Plot  and Rs.5,000/- towards membership but through this complaint, the complainant has sought refund of his deposited amount of Rs.4,55,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-  for mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2017(1) CPJ 1 has observed that it is the value of the goods or services, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in case titled as Ansal’s Woodbury Apartments Residents Welfare Association Vs. Ansals Housing & Construction Ltd. & another in First Appeal No.931 of 2016 decided on 16.05.2017 has also relied upon the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

6.             Thus, in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab we find that this Forum has not the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as when the value of the property/plot i.e. Rs.18,00,000/- is clubbed together with the compensation claimed of Rs.5,00,000/- and costs of litigation of Rs.25,000/-, the sum total of these amounts comes to above Rs.20.00 lakhs.

                Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby ordered to be returned to the complainant alongwith all the requisite documents placed on record. Further complainant is also granted liberty to approach the appropriate court of law/State Commission/National Commission for redressal of their grievances.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 05.12.2017    

                                           (A.P.S.Rajput)                 

President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member