Haryana

StateCommission

RP/89/2017

M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSHIL SACHDEVA AND OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY GHANGAS

02 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Revision Petition No:       89 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution:           27.09.2017

                                                Date of Decision:             02.02.2018

 

 

 

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, AG-24B, Ansal Highway Plaza, NH-1, Kundli, District Sonepat through its Authorized Representative Asheem.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Sushil Sachdeva s/o Sh. Laxman Sachdeva

 

2.      Mrs. Mridula Sachdeva wife of Sh. Sushil Sachdeva, both residents of 948-H, Sector 9, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                             Respondents-Complainants

 

3.      Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, Registered Office, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director.

Proforma Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                      

         

Argued by:          Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for petitioner.

                             Sh. Sushil Sachdeva and Mrs. Mridula Sachdeva-complainants in person

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited-opposite party No.1 is in revision against the order dated August 18^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby application filed by its to return the complaint or dismiss on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction was dismissed.

2.      As per Clause 3.1 of the Agreement (Annexure A-3) the price of the flat was Rs.23,79,200/-, so, it was not maintainable before the District Forum.  

3.      In First Appeal No.940 of 2016, Satyabati Panda Vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited and Others decided on November 15^th, 2016 by a bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President and Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the short ground that since the total amount paid by the complainant to the Developer was only a sum of Rs.12,32,024/- and the same being less than Rs.20,00,000/-, it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The findings of the Commission were not accepted by the Hon’ble National Commission by holding in paragraph No.2 of the order as under:-

          “2.    Since admittedly, the price of the flat was Rs.19,53,275/- and the compensation claimed in the complaint was Rs.54,38,528/-, which is more than Rs.20,00,000/- and less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-, in view of the decision of a Larger Bench of this Commission dated October 07^th, 2016 passed in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, the impugned decision cannot be sustained.”

4.      In First Appeal No.1194 of 2016, Santosh Arya Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited decided on October 07^th, 2016 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the short ground that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the total compensation claimed by the complainant works out to Rs.6,50,875/- and it being less than Rs.20,00,000/-, only the District Forum had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The Hon’ble National Commission set aside the findings of the State Commission by holding as under:-

          “4.    That being the legal position, in the present case, the value of the flat in question by itself being Rs.1,85,01,285/-, and even ignoring the amount of compensation, neither the State Commission nor the District Forum, as held by the State Commission, will have the jurisdiction and this Commission alone will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint filed by the Appellant.”

 

5.      From the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements in the cases Satyabati Panda, Santosh Arya and Santosh Arya (supra), this Commission holds that the complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum because value of the flat in question is itself Rs.23,79,200/-. Hence, the revision petition is allowed and the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable.  The complainants shall have liberty to seek their grievances before the appropriate authority.

         

 

 

Pronounced 02.02.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK