Haryana

StateCommission

CC/207/2016

LALIT KUMAR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,HAYRANA - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No     :      207 of 2016

Date of Institution:      27.07.2016  

Date of Decision :       30.08.2016

 

1.      Lalit Kumar Gupta (Senior Citizen)

2.      Santosh Gupta

Both Residents of 832, Sector 23-A, Gurgaon, Haryana-122017.

                             Complainants

Versus

1.      Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, having Registered Office, H.Q. S.C.O. No.71-75, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

2.      M/s Pal Infrastructure & Developers Private Limited, having Registered Office at Pal Infrastructure & Developers Private Limited, 3^rd Floor, Pal Tower, Sikander Pur, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

                                      Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri Lalit Kumar Gupta-complainant in person.   

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Lalit Kumar Gupta and Smt. Santosh Gupta-complainants (both husband and wife), have filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that they had applied for two flats with M/s Pal Infrastructure & Developers Private Limited-Opposite Party No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’) and deposited Rs.6.00 lacs in December, 2009. The basic price of a flat was Rs.18,60,000/-. Flat-Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the complainant and the builder. The builder was supposed to hand over the possession of flats latest by June, 2013. The builder did not start construction.

2.                By filing the instant complaint, the complainants have sought following relief:-

“(i)     Direction be issued to Director-DTCP to carry out development works pertaining to License # 42 of 2008 in accordance with Rules/Act provided in part 3) of this complaint.

(ii)      The Colonizer – M/s Pal Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. be directed to submit statement of accounts to DTCP confirming the amount received from us as flat allottee pertaining to license # 42 of 2008 in accordance with Rules/Acts provided in part 3) of this complaint.

(iii)     Director-DTCP be directed to pay us a compensation of Rs.5 Lacs/flat (total compensation of Rs.10 Lacs for both flats) on account of our mental & emotional sufferings due to several lapses & capricious conduct by himself. (details provided in part 4 & 5 of this complaint).

(iv)    Any other direction deemed appropriate to this case by the Hon’ble Commission.”

3.                Indisputably, the basic sale price of the flats was Rs.18,60,000/- each. Mere whimsical and hypothetical claims cannot confer jurisdiction, it has to be logic based. Merely because the complainant in para 8 of the complaint claimed amount of Rs.47,20,000/- by clubbing the price of two flats and adding compensation of Rs.10.00 lacs, just to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, would not confer the jurisdiction of the State Commission because the price of each of the flats is Rs.18,60,000/-, the complainants have paid Rs.6.00 lacs. As per Section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the State Commission is where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore. Section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Act is reproduced as under:-

17.    Jurisdiction of the State Commission. — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a)     to entertain—

(i)  complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and”

 

4.                The complainants cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora by either grossly over-valuing or under-valuing the claim. The compensation claimed has to be commensurate with the loss or injury suffered by the complainant. It cannot be arbitrary, imaginary or whimsical for a remote cause.

 

5.                In view of the above, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable before this Commission. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint before the Appropriate District Forum.

 

Announced: 30.08.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

CL