Haryana

Ambala

CC/386/2017

Smt Pushpa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gautam Sethi

27 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

           Complaint Case No.: 386 of 2017.

Date of Institution   : 10.11.2017.

Date of Decision     : 28.11.2017

 

Smt.Pushpa  Aggarwal aged about 56 years wife of Sh.Suresh Kumar Aggarwal son of late Sh.Om Parkash resident of H.No.11-A, Raja Park, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                      ……Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. M/s Unitech Limited, Real Estate Division (Marketing), 5^th Floor, Signature Towers, South City-1, N.H-8, Gurgaon-122001.
2. UNIHOMES (A Division of Unitech Limited), Uniworld City, Sector 16 Ambala City.
3. Mr.Hitesh Kumar, Suryansh Group (A unit of Suryansh Promoters & Infra Build Pvt. Ltd.) SCO 91, 2^nd Floor, Ganpati Tower, Prem Nagar, Ambala City-134003.

                                                                            ……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.Ravinder Goel, counsel for complainant.

                    

ORDER

 

                   Complainant has 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 City, Sector-16 at Ambala. The complainant had purchased/booked a flat with OPs and he was allotted property No. Block/Tower B, Floor 02 No.0009, Super Area 1646.00 SQFT and he was to pay total sum of Rs.36,60,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs.11,96,378/- and further payment was to be made after construction. The complainant visited the site and came to know that the OPs have neither started the construction nor any development such as road, sewerage and electricity etc. has been made.  It was construction linked plan and when on construction is going on  the complainant is not supposed to make the payment and there is no laxity on her part. The complainant requested the OPs to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest and further got served legal notices upon them but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. 

2.                We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant besides going through the material available on the file.

3.                After going through the allotment letter dated 15.04.2011, it is clear that the price of the plot in question is shown as Rs.3734352/-, 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. On this point we may place reliance of judgment dated 07.03.2017 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Manmohan Singh Vs. Unitech etc. wherein it has been 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 in limnie with no order as to costs with a liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate Court/Forum/Commission 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. 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: 28.11.2017                                 (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                             PRESIDENT                

 

 

        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                              MEMBER

                            

 

                                                                          (ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                                                                                                                                                                                MEMBER