District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
SAS Nagar, mohali
Complaint No. 447 of 2018
Date of institution: 13.04.2018
Decided On 02.05.2018
Tuscan Residency Welfare Society, TDI City, Sector 111, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its General Secretary, Jaswinder Singh Gill
Complainant………
Vs
- TDI Infratech Limited, Registered Office, 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
- TDI Infratech Limited, Divisional Office SCO 51-52, Sector 116, Kharar Road, TDI City SAS Nagar Mohali.
Opposite Parties…..
Quorum: Sh. G.K. Dhir, President,
Sh. Amrinder Singh, Member.
Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present:- Sh.Surjit Singh, cl for the complainant
Order by :- Sh. G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Sh. Jaswinder Singh Gill, General Secretary of the complainant society being authorized vide resolution dated 24.02.2018 has filed this complaint on the allegations that the OPs invited application from general public for purchase of floor wise flats by announcing tentative price of each floor. Number of persons applied to OP No.2 for allotment of floor by paying 20% of the price of the floor as booking amount. Possession was given as per schedule of the allotted floor somewhere in 2013-14. Successful applicants who got possession, formed a Welfare Society known as “Tuscan Residency Welfare Society TDI City, Sector 111, SAS Nagar, Mohali” for safe guarding their interest. Sale deed was executed in favour of the allottee within a reasonable time after final construction at the site and after receipt of the full dues. OPs sent notices to the occupants of the floors to deposit exorbitant amounts not referred in the floor buyer agreements. Demand of Rs. 98,131/- as VAT; Rs. 50,000/- as club charges; Rs. 2,40,000/- as stamp duty; Rs. 80,000/- as registry charges; Rs. 5,500/- as computer charges and Rs.23,600/- as Misc. expenses put forth through one of the legal notice issued by OP No.2. Inspite of paying huge amount by members of complainant society, they have not still become owners of the floors in their possession. Legal notice dated 02.03.2018 was issued for calling upon the OPs to execute the sale deeds in favour of the bonafide purchasers within 15 days from the date of notice, but no reply received nor sale deeds executed. So this complaint filed with prayer to direct the OPs to execute the sale deed in favour of the bonafide purchasers by claiming that buyers are ready and willing to pay the registration charges and fee as prescribed by the Punjab Govt. Even request made for quashing the demand regarding VAT, club charges etc. referred above.
2. One copy of the floor buyer agreement has been produced on record. Perusal of the same reveals that basic sale price is Rs.39,00,000/-. Besides as per payment plan worked out in schedule, in this buyer agreement, preferential location charges of Rs. 1,00,000/-; external development charges of Rs. 1,10,000/- more are payable. So total cost of the floor is mentioned as Rs. 41,10,000/- in this schedule of payment plan. For determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, the aggregate value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed along with amount of compensation and claimed interest has to be taken into consideration as per law laid down in Consumer Complaint No.97 of 2016 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd decided on 07.10.2016 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. As aggregate of the cost of the floor purchased by the individual member of this case is Rs.41,10,000/- and as such in view of the fact that this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint with valuation of the goods and services upto Rs.20 lakhs, certainly this complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.
3. Counsel for the complainant placed reliance in case titled as Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited through its Director versus Rajbir Singh Guron, Advocate decided on 08.02.2017 through first appeal no.1443 of 2013 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab for arguing that as refund of the deposited amount ordered in this cited case without forfeiture of the earnest amount and as such virtually this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction .Perusal of the para no. 2 of the cited case reveals that compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for mental harassment, Rs. 11,000/- litigation expenses was sought along with alternative relief for refund of Rs. 14 lacs with Rs.2,33,000/- as interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f 19.09.2011 upto the date of the complaint and further interest @ 12% more was claimed. It is contended by counsel for the complainant that valuation of the reliefs claimed in the cited case was more than Rs. 20 lakhs and as such this Forum has jurisdiction, more so when the relief claimed in the present complaint is just for direction to the OPs to execute the sale deed and quash the demand of charges referred above. After going through para no. 9 of the cited case, it is made out that allotment letter was cancelled in favour of the complainant and that is why relief was restricted to sum of Rs. 14 lacs plus compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- and that is why District Forum was held to be having pecuniary jurisdiction, more so when the total amount of the claimed reliefs was upto 20 lacs only. The present is not a case in which cancellation of the agreement in question sought, but present is a case in which enforcement of the floor buyer agreement dated 28.09.2011 is sought for calling upon the OPs to execute the sale deeds. So virtually the worth of the goods sold or the services availed in the case before us is Rs.41,10,000/-, which is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. View projected to be taken in case of Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited through its Director versus Rajbir Singh Guron, Advocate (supra) has not been approved in First Appeal No. 1364 of 2017 decided on 21.08.2017 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited & 2 Ors versus Lalitha Saini. Ratio of this latest decided case by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi lays that in view of the decision of case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (supra), the value of the goods/services purchased/availed to be taken on its face value along with amount of compensation and interest claimed for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. So in view of the decision of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (later on affirmed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited & 2 Ors versus Lalitha Saini (ibid), it is obvious that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction and as such complaint deserves to be returned to the complainant. Even in case titled as Ruhi Seth versus IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd bearing consumer case no. 1464 of 2017 decided on 13.11.2017 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that when the parties go ahead with the execution of the buyer agreement, then in view of ratio of case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (supra), the total value of the goods/services availed or purchased, is to be taken into consideration. However, in case the refund sought by seeking cancellation of the agreement, then the value of the complaint has to be, the value of the amount deposited plus compensation claimed. Even if this view is taken into consideration, then keeping in view the fact that amount deposited is more than Rs. 41,10,000/- as per terms of the buyer agreement and complainant seeking enforcement of that agreement, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Being so, the complaint deserves to be returned back to the complainant for presentation before the appropriate forum/Hon’ble Commission.
4. As a sequel of the above discussion, the complaint returned for presentation before the appropriate forum/Hon’ble Commission Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost
Announced
May 02, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
