DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.176/2012

1. Shri Ranjan Narula

Vatika Tower, 10th Floor,

Block-B, Sector-54,

Gurgaon-122002

Haryana.

2. Rachna Narula

Vatika Tower, 10th Floor,

Block-B, Sector-54,

Gurgaon-122002

Haryana.

                                                                             ….Complainants

Versus

Unitech Limited

Registered office at

6, Community Centre

Saket, New Delhi-110017                                        ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :      23.04.2012     Date of Order    :      18.10.2018

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant are :-

The complainants had booked an apartment in the year 2006 and was allotted an apartment No. 1403 on 13^th Floor of Tower 17, Horizon (Greater Noida) developed by Unitech Limited (OP). Thereafter, as per the terms of payments schedule the complainant paid the total consideration amount of Rs.44,77,047/- to the OP. It was mutually agreed between the parties that OP will deliver the possession of the apartment by 15.09.2008. However, the possession was not handed over to the complainants inspite of having received the entire sale consideration amount. The complainants submit that the possession of the flat was handed over to them only on 04.07.2012 after inordinate delay period of four years. The complainants further submit that the OP had paid penalty charges to the complainants upto 31.01.2011 and thereafter, the OP stopped paying penalty charges to the complainants.

2.      The complainants approached this Forum for handing over the possession of the flat which has already been given as admitted by the complainants. The complainants further prayed for approximately Rs.1,50,000 by way of penalty charges, refund of maintenance charges and refund of charges towards delayed payment of taking paid by the complainants. Additionally the complainants seek Rs.5,00,000/- by way of compensation.

3.      Admittedly the total value of the flat was Rs.44,77,047/- which is  way beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the present Forum. As the transaction in question is more than Rs.20 lakhs, hence the present case is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – 1 (2017) CPJ (NC)  and it has been subsequently reiterated in judgment dated 09.02.2018 of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Gurumukh Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors.

4.      The complaint is rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file the same before the competent authority. Registry is directed to return original the documents to the complainants after keeping a copy of the same.  

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 18.10.18