Haryana

Kurukshetra

177/2016

Somi Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Rishi Pal

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                Complaint no. 217/16.

                                                Date of instt.  3.8.16.

                                              Date of Decision 29.1.18.

 

1. Sanyam Handa son of Virender Handa,
2. Virender Handa son of Om Parkash Handa, both residents of House No.423, Durga Mandir Chowk, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.             

                                                                                                                                                        …….complainants.

                          Vs.

 

1. Landmark Info net Private Limited, Landmark House 85-P, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana through Managing Director.
2. Landmark City, Shahbad care of Landmark Info net Private Limited, Landmark House 85-P, Sector-44, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director/Manager.
3. Shyam Sunder Makkar son of Amir Chand Makkar, resident of Foji Chowk, Shahbad Markanda, Kurukshetra (agent, Landmark City, Shahbad Regional Office, Shahbad).
4. Ajay Taneja, resident of House No.62, Sector-9, Ambala (Agent, Landmark City, Shahbad, Regional Office, Shahbad).

                                                        ….OPs.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before:                     Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

       Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member.

       Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member,

                       

Present:        Sh. Sanjeev Bhasin, Adv. for complainants.

                      Sh. J.S. Deswal, Adv. for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainants Sanyam Ganda & another against Landmark Info net Private Limited and others, opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainants have come under the allurement of the Ops and have registered for provisional allotment of Plot/Flat in Landmark City, Shahbad proposed to be developed by the Ops No.1 & 2 on a parcel of land situated in Sector-9, Shahbad Markanda, Kurukshetra and they have booked a Floor of 180 Sq. Yard (G.F.) which consists 2 & 3 BHK i.e. 2/3 spacious bedrooms, Living & Dining Room, Kitchen, Tranquil lush greens etc. in the proposed project of the Ops against the total sale consideration of Rs.34,22,400/-. They have also made the payment of Rs.16,11,000/- to the Ops in respect of the above said Flat in the following manner:-

i) Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque.

ii) Rs.5,11,000/- through cheque.

iii) Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque.

 

                The Ops have also published the books which consists various layouts of the proposed project and they have reserved the land for the purpose of Parkas, roads, school, parking, sports/play grounds like swimming pool, tennis or basket ball; massage therapies etc. The Ops have supplied the said books and layouts to the complainant at the time of registration of the said flat. The Ops have also furnished the details of specifications for walls, floors, ceiling, doors, windows, electrical and others meant for the purpose of said projects of the Ops. The Ops were bound to get necessary approval from the Government in the proposed projects and they were bound to deliver the possession and allotment of the flat to the complainants and to develop their alleged project in all respects, at the earliest within two years from the registration/booking as per the oral version of the Ops but the Ops have failed to develop the alleged project and have not initiated any kind of development work in the area. The Ops have failed to provide the basic amenities i.e. school, park, no parking space, no road etc. and now the complainants have gathered information from the reliable sources that the Ops have totally changed the layouts and development schemes. The Ops have only raised the construction of some flats; but they have left incomplete as they have not even got the approval from the Government for the construction of flats, whereas, the Ops have promised to deliver the possession of the constructed flats to the complainant. The complainants have repeatedly requested the Ops either to deliver the possession of the plot or to refund the entire amount along with interest but the Ops have refunded the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainants and for the balance amount the Ops are protracting the matter on one pretext.  Due to the above said act and conduct of the Ops; the complainants have suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.13,61,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.2,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                   Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties. The Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana has granted the licenses under Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and Rules made there under to Shri Gurdev Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Jasmer Singh, Harpal Singh, Parvider Singh, Jasmer Singh, Navjot Singh, Sunder Singh, Avtar Singh, Inderpal Singh, Sahab Singh, Narinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Kanwaljeet Singh, Balkrishan alias Gurpal Singh, Amarjeet Kaur care of Landmark Info net Private Limited Landmark House 85, Sector-44, Industrial Area, Gurgaon, for setting up a residential plotted colony on the land measuring 27.6688 acres falling in the revenue estate of village Jamada Shahbad, in Sector-9, of Final Development Plan, Shahbad in the year,2014, so it is very much necessary to implead all the licensee of the above said colony; that the present complaint is pre-mature and is not maintainable as per Clause-O of the agreement in which it is mentioned that owner of plot shall construct at his own cost or get constructed by any other institution or individual at its cost, schools, hospitals, community centers and other community buildings on the land set apart for this purpose within a period of four years from the date of grant of license extendable by the Directors for another period of two years; that as per Clause-A of the agreement dated 2.6.2014, the owners of the plots are liable to pay the proportionate external development charges at tentative rate of Rs.55,638/- lac per acre for plotted area. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainants have failed to comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in their application form; that although, the present complaint is not maintainable as infrastructures development charges and external development charges have not been deposited by the complainants till date. Moreover, the complainants also failed to deposit the internal development charges. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainants have failed to comply the terms and conditions. Moreover, the present complaint is nothing but is a recovery suit which can be filed after affixing the ad-valorem court fees in the civil court. Besides, it, this Forum has no jurisdiction to even entertain the present complaint because as per clause-39 only Gurgaon court has jurisdiction to decide the matter. In addition to there is an arbitration clause which also prohibit the parties to the matter approached any other authority on the ground of any dispute. So, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            Before deciding the matter an application for permission to amend the complaint has been moved by the complainant in which it is stated that in the prayer clause the complainants wants an alternative relief whereas in the body of the complaint main relief sought to refund of the amount deposited with the Ops is wanted to be added in place of the possession of the plot in question.

5.            We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

6.            It is to be seen that in the instant case, the value of the property is beyond the pecuniary limit of Rs.20,00,000/- and as such this Forum has got no pecuniary jurisdiction. Moreover, in the preliminary objection No.8, it has so been stated by the Ops that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. In such like circumstances, the application is not maintainable. Moreover, this Forum has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

7.            In such like circumstances, the application is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. This Forum has also got no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The complaint is also hereby dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

                 Copy of this order; be communicated to the parties.

Announced:             

Dt. 29.1.2018.   

                                                     (G.C.Garg)

                                                       President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

       (Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)            (Viraj Pahil)

       Member                                  Member