Haryana

Ambala

CC/161/2017

Manmeet Singh Bains - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Gupta

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

             Complaint Case No.: 161 of 2017

Date of Institution   :  29.05.2017.

Date of Decision     :  25.10.2017

1.Manmeet Singh Bains aged about 25 years.

2.Ramandeep Singh Bains aged about 27 years

Sons of Sh.Kulwinder Singh Bains r/o H.No.1297-1298/11, Court Road, Ambala City.

                                                                                                            ……Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Unitech Limited through its Managing Director, Regd.Office 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
2. Unitech Office. Unihomes Sector-16, Ambala City, (Haryana) through its Office Incharge.

                                                                                                         ……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:        SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                       

Present:          Sh. Navneet Gupta, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Abhishek Kathuria, Adv. counsel for Ops.  

ORDER

                        Complainants have filed the present complaint averring therein that the Ops are engaged in the business of developing colonies & residential township under the name and style M/s Unitech Limited and extensively advertised for promotion and developing a residential township as Unihomes, Uniworld City, Sector-16 at Ambala. The complainants had purchased/booked a plot by paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No.050142  dated 13.11.2012 and the OPs had allotted  unit No.0099 floor 2^nd block 00B Unihomes Sector-16 vide allotment letter 22.11.2012.  They further paid a sum of Rs.3,65,000/- vide receipt No.1026200775 through cheque No.050143 dated 25.11.2012. The Ops have failed to deliver the possession of the plot even after passing of more than 4 years despite the fact that as per agreement the possession was to be delivered within 24 months.  The complainants requested the Ops to refund the amount and even got served legal notice upon them  but to no avail. The complainant has sent mail to the ops on dated 17.08.2016 to refund the amount but it vain. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant has prayed for relief with a direction to refund Rs.4,15,000/- alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till realization besides Rs.60,000/- for mental harassment and financial losses.

2.                     OPs appeared but instead of filing the reply to the complaint they had filed an application to decide the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction wherein it has been averred that the value of the property is Rs.43,24,352/-, therefore, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction which does not exceed Rs.20 lac. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                     We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as Ops and gone through the record very minutely. The OPs have specifically mentioned that the value of the plot is Rs.43,24,352/- /-, therefore, before going further it is desirable to re-produce Section -11 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is as under:-

 

“11 Jurisdiction of the District Forum (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum  shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs”.

Section-11 is worded in clear terms and leaves no one in doubt that the District Forum shall not entertain any complaint which exceeds its pecuniary limits beyond Rs.20.00 lacs. The counsel for the OP further strengthened his version by placing reliance on case law 2016(3) CLT Pg. 20 (NC)  titled as Ravi Marwah Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has been held that “Housing construction-Refund claimed with interest-The amount of interest claimed by the flat buyers needs to be added to the principal amount paid by them for the purpose of deciding whether a particular complaint falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of  Consumer Forum”. Counsel for OP has also placed reliance on case law rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as M/s Omaxe Ltd Vs. Iqbal Begum & Anr. etc. decided on 16.05.2014 in First Appeal No.887 of 2013 wherein it is held that “pecuniary jurisdiction  is to be decided in accordance with the prayer made in the  complaint”.  Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh while deciding the complaint titled as Manmohan Singh Vs. Unitech etc. on 07.03.2017 has held that if the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer is taken as the value of the goods or services in that case, the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.

4.                     In view of the legal proposition enunciated above, we refrain ourselves from giving any opinion whether complainant fall within the purview of consumer or whether any deficiency on the part of Ops but we decide the point of pecuniary jurisdiction first in light of the case laws referred above. Accordingly, we are of the confirmed opinion that this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and thus the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs with a liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate authority on the same cause of action.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583. The complainants can take all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and the office is also directed to hand-over the same, if any, attached with the complaint against proper receipt & identification and after placing photocopy of the same on the case file. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

ANNOUNCED: 25.10.2017                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                              PRESIDENT               

 

 

        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                               MEMBER                                          

 

                                                                                           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                                                                                               MEMBER