Haryana

StateCommission

RP/129/2017

M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIPIN GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY GHANGAS

27 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Revision Petition No:       129 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution:           12.12.2017

                                                Date of Decision:             27.02.2018

 

 

 

1.      Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Limited, (now known as TDI Infracorp (India) Limited, Site Office TDI City, Panipat through its Authorized Representative Sh. Om Prakash Dhingra.

 

2.      Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Limited (now known as TDI Infracorp (India) Limited, Customer Support Centre, UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11 Tolstoy Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi through its Authorized Representative Sh. Om Prakash Dhingra.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Vipin Gupta son of Sh. Jai Kanwar, resident of House No.958-P, Sector 13-17, Panipat.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                      

         

Argued by:          Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for petitioner.

                             Shri Arun Kumar Singal, Advocate for the respondent.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          By filing this revision petition, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Limited and another-opposite parties (petitioners herein) have challenged the order dated November 10^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the application filed by the petitioner to return the complaint for the reason that District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint, was dismissed.

2.      The only submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure A-3), the total sale price of the plot was Rs.86,63,900/-, so, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

3.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has urged that the entire payment has been made to the petitioners to purchase the plot.  The possession of the plot has been handed over to the complainant. 

4.      By filing the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, the complainant has made the following prayer:-

          “A.     The respondents may kindly be directed to withdraw the illegal demand notice against the complainant.

B.      Further, the respondents be directed to make account of the complainant’s plot on the actual rate of EDC/IDC.

C.      Further, the respondent be directed not to charge PLC from the complainant.

D.      Further, the respondent be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation due to the mistake and deficient and negligent services on the part of respondent.

E.      Further, the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

F.      Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper may also be given to the complainant.”

5.      The complainant has challenged the difference of Extra Development Charges (EDC), Internal Development Charges (IDC) and Preferential Location Charges (PLC).  As per the complainant, he was informed by the petitioners that EDC/IDC shall be charged at the rate of Rs.1583/- per square yard but now the petitioners are demanding EDC/IDC at the rate of Rs.2408/- per square yard by issuing notice dated May 30^th, 2013.  Moreover, the complainant has already paid the entire amount to the petitioners.  He has also taken the possession. There is no controversy or prayer or relief with respect to the plot.  The controversy now is limited to the question whether the petitioners are entitled to recover EDC/IDC at the rate of Rs.2408/- per square yard or not.  The jurisdiction value cannot go beyond this amount. In this situation, the irresistible conclusion is that the price of plot cannot be counted. Thus, the pecuniary jurisdiction vests with the District Forum.  The District Forum has rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioners.  The revision petition is also dismissed.   

 

 

Pronounced 27.02.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK