Delhi

StateCommission

CC/657/2016

SH. PUNEET JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERTECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments: 02.08.2016

Date of Decision: 04.08.2016

Complaint No. 656/16 & C-657/16

 

 

In the matter of:

Smt. Chitra Gupta,

W/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass Gupta,

At 5A, Shankar Gali,

Govind Mohalla, Haiderpur,

Delhi-110088.                                                                                       …....... Complainant

 

Versus

Supertech Limited,

Through its MD,

Regd. Office:

1114, 11^th Floor,

Hemkunt Chamber,

89, Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019.                                                                         ….......... Opp. Party

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

Judgement

 

1. By this common order, I shall be deciding two complaints no. 656/16 and 657/16 as they involve question of pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

2. Both the complaints are at the stage of admission.   In CC No.656/16, Complainant Chitra Gupta booked unit in H-Tower at UP Country situated at TS-1, Sector-17A, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority in October, 2011. The possession was to be delivered by August, 2015.  Complainant has deposited Rs.13,76,656/- so far.  Now, this complaint for refund of said amount alongwith compound interest @24% per annum amounting to Rs.25,78,327/-. She has also prayed for damages of Rs.5 lacs for harassment, humiliation, stress strain, mental agony.

 

3. In CC No.657/16 Sh. Punit Jindal booked unit in the same tower during the same period. He has paid Rs.13,76,620/- so far.  He has prayed for refund of the said amount alongwith compound interest @24% per annum amounting to Rs.25,78,327/-.  He has prayed for damages Rs.5 lacs for harassment, humiliation, stress strain, mental agony.

 

4. The amount of principal refund claimed by complainant alongwith compensation is less than Rs.20 lacs and within the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum.

 

5. The counsel for complainant submitted that interest must be added. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of National Commission in CC No.13/15 titled as Sumit Singh Vs. Unitech decided on 18.01.2016. In that case interest was not directly in issue.  Rather the National Commission took part of interest as compensation and after adding the same, it was held that National Commission had the jurisdiction.

 

6. As compared to it, there is decision of three member bench of National Commission in Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. National Insurance Co. II (2003) CPJ 81 to the effect that interest cannot be added for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  The same has been followed by National Commission in CC No.1521/15 titled as Ritu Duggal Vs. Unitech Reliable Project Ltd. decided on 01.02.2016 and Sanjay Katial Vs. Hemilton Heights (P) Ltd.  in CC No.634/16 pronounced on 05.05.2016.

 

7. The decision of three member bench of  National  Commission in Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. National Insurance Co. (supra) was not cited before the National Commission in case relied upon by counsel for complainant. The same could not be differed and has not been differed by the National Commission in Sumit Singh (supra).

 

8. The complaints are dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

9. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. One copy be placed in CC No.657/16 also.

 

10. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)