CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.181/2016
- MR. HUZOOR ALI
S/O SH. SHAUKAT ALI
- MRS. HALIMEEMA BEGUM
W/O SH. HUZOOR ALI
R/O 126-C, POCKET-C, SIDHARTHA EXTN.,
DELHI-110014
…………. COMPLAINANTS
AND
Case No.182/2016
- MR. HIMANSHU
S/O SH. DIGVIJAY SINGH
- MRS. PREETI
W/O MR. HIMANSHU
R/O H.NO.653, 1ST FLOOR, URBAN ESTATE,
SECTOR-07, GURGAON, HARYANA-122001
…………. COMPLAINANTS
Vs.
M/S SUPERTECH TOWNSHIP PROJECT LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
1114, HEMKUNT CHAMBERS,
89, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:14.08.2018
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
By this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid complaints as the common question of fact and law is involved. For the sake of reference, facts of case no.181/2016 are detailed.
The complainants, Mr. Hazoor Ali and Ms. Halimeema Begum, have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Supertech Township Project Ltd., alleging that the complainants booked a residential plot bearing no.R001B00118 (originally it was plot no.R001B00237) having an area of 100 sq. Yds for a total consideration of Rs.20,75,001/-, and paid a booking amount of Rs.1,00,000/- against receipt bearing no.11000073 dated 4.5.2011. The complainants were assured by the OP and its staff that license for the said project had been applied for and the projects would be completed by March 2013, and an agreement/allotment letter dated 10.12.2011, to this effect was executed between the complainants and the OP, which contained all the terms and conditions of the transaction. After execution of the allotment letter, the complainant made a payment of Rs.62,500/- vide cheque no.461090 dated 27.12.2011 against receipt no.5000431 and subsequently, on being demanded, further payment of Rs.2,43,750/- was made on 30.12.2011 against receipt no.5000448 and Rs.4,04,544/- on 1.6.2012 vide receipt no.5000221. It was also represented to the complainant by the OP that development works at site had reached the desired milestone. As the delivery of the plot was to be made by the OP in March, 2013, the complainant no.1 visited the site in February 2013 and was shocked to see that the progress at the site was not at all in accordance with the milestone defined by the OP. The complainant received an email demanding Rs.4,06,250/- and the complainant confronted the OP that they were not depicting the true picture. Despite that the complainant had no choice to make payment of Rs.4,07,440/- vide cheque no.413023 dated 27.8.2013 against receipt no.5002752. Thus, it is submitted that the complainants had paid a total sum of Rs.12,17,234/- till August, 2013. The complainant enquired from the OP by way of email and also by personal visits and on phone to know the date when possession of the plot would be delivered to them. The OP failed to deliver possession and was buying time again and again, and finally the complainants decided to file the present complaint. In the prayer, the complainants seek directions to the OP to refund Rs.12,17,234/- alongwith 18% p.a. interest from the date of deposit till its refund apart from Rs.2 lakh as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainants.
OP in its reply submitted that as per the terms and conditions of allotment letter dated 10.12.2011, the timely payment of installment as indicated in the payment plan on page 2/3, was the essence of the contract ant if the payment is not made in time, the allotment will be cancelled and the balance amount will be refunded after deducting 15% of total price of the plot. It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of allotment, allottees were bound to pay the additional charges which are over and above the basic price. It is submitted that on account of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in respect of the land in question, the compensation to the farmers was increased and which was to be borne by the builder, as such the prices were raised. It is stated that as per clause 15 of the allotment letter, the complainants were under legal obligation to pay all taxes and charges etc. They were bound to pay electricity charges, charges for damages, interest free refundable security etc. It is stated that possession of the plot was to be delivered as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter by March 2013 with a grace period of six months delay under any unforeseen circumstances and in case of failure on the part of the company, the company was bound to pay compensation @ Rs.75/- per sq. yard of area of the plot per month for a period of such delay. However, it is subject to the condition that the complainant has made the payment. Moreover this Forum has no jurisdiction as there is arbitration clause and the matter was to be decided by the arbitrator. It is further submitted that the complainants were duly informed by OP vide email dated 02.09.2014 with respect to some changes in layout plan and offered for re-allotment of another plot of the same cost, area and specifications. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 23.11.2015, the complainants were sent intimation regarding pre-possession formalities of plot bearing no.B-118 and certain charges were demanded but the complainant did not comply with that letter. Various emails were sent but the complainant did not respond. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
Since OP has raised objection that this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, an application was moved for amendment of the complaint. That application was allowed. Amended complaint was filed. Ld. Counsel for OP submitted that OP does not want to file any reply. By way of amended complaint, the complainant has sought refund of the amount with interest @ 10% p.a. and compensation of Rs.75,000/-.
The complainant has made total payment of Rs.12,17,234/-. But the fact remains that the total price of the plot was Rs.20,75,001/- hence the present complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – 1(2017) CPJ (NC) and subsequent judgment dated 09.02.2018 of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Gurumukh Singh Vs Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors.
The original complaint alongwith documents be returned to the complainant with liberty to file the same before the Forum of appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction. For the purpose of limitation, complainant will get the benefit of the period spent before this Forum.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
