Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1024/2016

SURYAKANT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN BHARDWAJ

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                Date of Arguments: 22.09.16

Date of Decision:    29.09.16

 

Complaint No. 1024/2016

In the matter of:

            Suryakant Singh

            S/o Late Shri Amar Singh

            R/o B-706, Sarojini Nagar

            Near AK Roy Marg

            New Delhi-110023                                                      ....Complainant

                                      Versus

 

 

                                                                                                          Unitech Limited

6, Community Centre, Saket

New Delhi-110017

Through Managing Director

 

Also at

 

UGCC Pavillion

Sector 96 Expressway

NOIDA- 201305 UP

 

 

ICICI Bank Limited

SCO 18-19

Huda Shopping Centre

Sec-14, Gurgaon

122001, Haryana                                          .......Opposite Parties                                                                                                                                    

 

CORAM

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

 

•  

 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

 

2041079862166.  

 

1. The present complaint is based on the allegation that in May-June 2012 he booked a residential flat in UNHOMES-3 at Plot No. GH001, Sector 113, NOIDA, UP.  The possession was to be given within 36 months.  The booking was for total price of Rs. 33,99,330/-, OP 1 issued allotment letter dated 20.06.12 provisionally allotting flat No. 0607, Tower C-3.  The complainant paid Rs. 5,79,873/- till 23.05.14.  The complainant availed loan facility of Rs. 9,00,326/- from ICICI Bank.  The complainant paid Rs. 4,29,215/- as pre-EMI interest till 10.07.2016.  The complainant terminated booking vide letter dated 04.06.16.  Hence this complaint for refund of loan  amount disbursed by OP 2, directions to OP 1 not to forefeit any amount while refunding the loan amount to OP 1, direct OP 1 to pay Rs. 5,79,873/- to complainant, direct OP 1 to pay Rs. 4,10,274/- as interest @ 18% on the sum paid by him to OP 1, direct OP 1 to pay Rs. 4,29,215/- which were paid by complainant to bank as pre-EMI interest,  direct OP 1 to pay Rs. 1,26,505/- as interest @ 18% per annum on the amount paid to the bank, Rs. 15,00,000/- as damages for illegal and unlawful act and breach of commitment by OP 1 including physical and mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- cost of litigation.
2. I have heard the counsel for complainant at the stage of admission. The interest amounting to Rs. 4,10,274/- claimed in prayer clause D cannot be included for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction as per decision of three member bench of National Commission in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills vs. National Insurance Company II (2003) CPJ 81.
3. The counsel for the complainant cited decision of National Commission in consumer case No. 427/14 titled as Satish Kumar Pandey vs. Unitech decided on 08.06.15 to make out that he is entitled to some interest, may be less or more.  The same is a question to be decided at the final stage.  The same does not deal with including of the amount of interest for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.
4. Counsel for the complainant also cited decision of National Commission in consumer case No. 1479/2015 titled as Developers Township Property Owners Welfare Society vs. Jai Prakash Associate Ltd. Decided on 02.05.16.  The same is also distinguishable on the same reason as that of Satish Pandey.
5. The damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- against payment of Rs. 5,29,873/- is highly accelerated particularly when amount was paid somewhere between 2012 to 2014.  It is settled law that exaggerated value can be checked at the stage of admission.  Otherwise the same may disturb the legislative framework of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction at different levels viz district forum, state commission and National Commission. 
6. If the amount of interest and the amount of damages is excluded, remaining sum would come to Rs. 11,00,000/- and something. 
7. The same is less than pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.
8. The complaint is rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.