Haryana

StateCommission

CC/53/2016

VIKAS LODHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNCITY PROJECT PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AMMISH GOEL

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.53 of 2016

                                             Date of Institution:29.02.2016

          Date of Decision: 14.12.2016

 

1.      Vikas Lodha S/o Sh.Mahesh Chand Lodha.

2.      Yogita Jain W/o Sh.Vikas Lodha

          Both R/o H.No.1681, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainants

Versus

1.      Suncity Projects Private Limited through its Managing Director, N-59, Ist floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

2.      Branch Manager/Project Manager, Suncity Projects Private Limited Prikrama Group Housing Project, Near Saint Xavier Juniors School, Sector-20, Panchkula.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Ammish Goel proxy counsel for Mr.D.K.Singal, Advocate counsel for the complainants.

                             Mr.Atul Aggarwal, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by complainants that they booked flat No.803, 8^th Floor in Tower 10-A, measuring 2150 sq. yards with basic sale price of Rs.4500/- per sq. ft. Buyers agreement Annexure C-4 was executed to this effect. As possession is not delivered within stipulated time, O.Ps.  be directed to refund Rs.85,45,418/- already deposited with them alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till it’s actual realization besides compensation to the tune of Rs.One lac qua mental harassment etc. and Rs.55000/- as litigation expenses.

2.               O.ps. filed reply controverting their averments and alleged that this commission is not having pecuniary  and territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. Complainants have not deposited the balance amount as per clause 6 of agreement. Due to this reason they competent to cancel allotment and forfeit earnest money.  The construction of six towers has already been completed and possession has been handed over to respective allottees. They will hand over possession of the flat soon.  There was no deficiency in service on their part rather there is fault on the part of complainants.  Preliminary objections about concealing material facts etc. were also raised and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Arguments heard. File perused.

4.                Learned counsel for complainants vehemently argued that complainants have requested to refund Rs.85,45,418/- lakhs. To determine pecuniary jurisdiction amount to be refunded is to be taken into consideration. Value of goods purchased or services hired and availed by any consumer and interest are irrelevant as opined by Hon’ble National  commission in Consumer case No.97 of 2016 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016 while answering issue Nos.ii, iii and iv qua reference dated 24.05.2016.  He further argued that State Commission, Chandigarh opined in complaint case No.CC/5/2014 titled as Sh.Karnail Singh Vs. M/s Emaar MGF land limited decided on 09.04.2014 that interest claimed cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. M/s EMAAR MGF land limited filed an Revision against that order which was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2014 by Hon’ble National Commission. Thereafter EMAAR MGF filed SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 14.11.2014. So looking from any angle it is clear that this commission is having jurisdiction to try this complaint. 

5.                This argument is of no avail. Opinion expressed qua reference dated 24.05.2016  and discussed in issue Nos.ii, iii and iv is as under:-

“A complaint under section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable before this Commission where the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation, if any, claimed in respect of all such consumers exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. The value of the goods purchased or the services hired and availed of by an individual consumer or the size, or date of booking/allotment/purchase of the flat would be wholly irrelevant in such a complaint where the complaint relates to the sale/allotment of several flats/plots in the same project/building.”

6.                From the bare perusal of this portion it is clear that while answering these issues it was opined by Hon’ble National commission that value of goods or services availed by an individual is wholly irrelevant and value or services availed by all the petitioners is to be taken into consideration. 

7.      Whether interest is to be taken into consideration or not is clearly discussed by Hon’ble National Commission in reference dated 11.08.2016 which is as under:-

          “Reference dated 11.08.2016

          Issue No.(i)

It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

          Issue No.(ii)

The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer Forum.

          Issue No.(iii)

The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer forum.”

From the bare perusal of this answer it is clear that value of the goods alongwith interest etc. is to be taken into consideration and not only the amount sought to be refunded. This view was also followed by Hon’ble National Commission in first appeal No.1194 of 2016 titled as Santosh Arya Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited decided on 07.10.2016. For ready reference Para No.3 of this judgement is also reproduced as under:-

“3.     On a bare reading of the afore-extracted provision, it is clear that it is only the value of the goods or services and the quantum of the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, which determines the jurisdiction of the State Commission.  In other words, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods agreed to be paid by the consumer and the amount claimed as compensation, which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the state Commission. the act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiency in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to a consumer.”

8.                As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in aforesaid case laws it is clear that not only amount sought to be refunded is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, but, also interest.  If we calculate value as per relief claimed it is more than one crore, which is much beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.  For ready reference the relief claimed is as under:-

1.	Price of the flat	Rs.96,75,000/-
2.	Interest claimed	Rs.35,89,075/-
3.	Compensation claimed	Rs.1,00,000/-
4.	Litigation expenses claimed	Rs.55,000/-
	Total	Rs.1,34,19,075

As per this calculation value is more than one crore which is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.  When this commission is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter, it is not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgement without jurisdiction is nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.  Complainants cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws after the latest opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra).  Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Karnal Singh’s case (supra) was decided by single Bench whereas latest opinion is of full bench of Hon’ble National Commission. Civil writ petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in limine and it was no-where opined that how value is to be assessed and taken into consideration.

9.      As a sequal to above discussion, complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

December 14th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.