JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainants/respondents booked a residential flat with the petitioner company in a housing colony namely Chiranjiv Vihar in Ghaziabad and a flat in the aforesaid colony was allotted to them for a price of Rs.5,38,000/-. The complainants paid a sum of Rs.1,50,640/- to the petitioner company, but, finding no development on the site, they stopped payment of further installments which were linked with the pace of the construction. Being aggrieved from the failure of the petitioner to deliver possession of the flat allotted to them, the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the amount paid by them alongwith compensation etc. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company which took a preliminary objection that it was barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. It was also alleged that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the relief sought in the complaint was below Rs.4,00,000/-. On merits, it was alleged that the complainants were entitled to refund of the amount paid by them after 10% deduction. 3. The State Commission vide its order dated 08.12.2016, allowed the complaint and directed refund of the amount paid by the complainant with interest. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner company is before this Commission. 4. Only two contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the first being that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and other being that the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. 5. In terms of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, the State Commission, at the time the complaint was instituted way back in the year 2002, had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or services as the case might be and the compensation if any claimed in the complaint exceeded Rs.5,00,000/-. As held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the value of services in such cases means the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. Since admittedly, the agreed consideration itself was more than Rs.5,00,000/-, the State Commission did possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint at the time it was instituted. 6. As regards the plea of limitation, ordinarily if the possession is not given to the allottees, they would have a recurrent cause of action to file the complaint till the time either the possession was given to them or the amount paid by them was refunded. Of course, the complainants would also have an earlier cause of action in case allotment is cancelled. Though the case of the petitioner company is that the allotment made to the complainants was cancelled vide letter dated 30.03.2000, there is no evidence of the aforesaid letter having been served upon the complainants. In the absence of receipt of the said letter, the complainants never came to know of the alleged cancellation and consequently, had no cause of action to file the complaint. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention that the complaint when filed, was barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. 7. Since no other contention is advanced on behalf of the appellant, the appeal being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. |
