BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Mr.Nalin Mehta son of Mr.Bhupindedr Mehta, R/o H.No.252, Sector 6, Panchkula

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     Emaar MGF Land Private Limited, SCO 120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

2]     Emaar MGF Land Private Limited, ECE House, #28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Director.

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     P.L. AHUJA                                PRESIDENT

RAJINDER  SINGH  GILL                      MEMBER

Argued by:        Sh.S.C.Sharma, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OPs

PER  RAJINDER SINGH GILL,  MEMBER

                Briefly stated, the complainant was allotted a Plot No.232, measuring 300 sq. yards in Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali by the OPs and a Plot Buyer Agreement, dated 04.07.2007 was also executed between the parties. It is averred that as per the said Plot Buyer Agreement, the possession of the plot was to be delivered by OPs within a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement buy not later then 3 years. It is also averred that the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.40,50,355/- including external development chares & preference location charges (PLC) to the OPs and thereafter a Provisional allotment of the plot was issued through letter dated 09.05.2007. It is submitted that as per Clause No.8 of the Plot Buyer Agreement the possession of plot was to be made within two years, which expired on 04.07.2009, but the OPs failed to hand over the physical possession of the plot even till date.  The complainant has made personal visits as well as telephonic request regarding the physical possession of the plot, but they always made a lame excuse on one pretext or the other that they will deliver the possession of the plot very soon. Therefore, the present complaint has instituted alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service due to which the complainant is suffering a lot. 

2]             OPs filed joint reply stating therein that the plot in question was allotted to one Mr.Anuj Singal vide agreement dated 04.07.2007 from whom the complainant has purchased it and thereafter, it was transferred in his name only on 14.6.2011 (Ex.RW/A).   It is stated that the complainant purchased the plot from the secondary market and was never the original allottee for the said unit.  It is also stated that the Agreement in question was endorsed in favour of the complainant only on 14.6.2011 pursuant to inter-se sale agreement between the complainant and Sh.Anuj Singhal, the original allottee. It is clarified that the OP Company is committed to deliver the possession of the unit at the earliest.  However, the Company is liable to pay penalty @Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month as per Clause 8 of the Agreement for delay in handing over the possession.  Thus, as per the Contract Act and settled law, the complainant cannot claim compensation in excess of what has been agreed under the contract.  It is submitted that the Company has started offering possession in a phased manner of units where all amenities mentioned in the Agreement have been completed.  Work is going on in the area where the plot of the complainants is located and it would be offered for possession on completion of ongoing work. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]             Before going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to see whether the present complaint falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum or not.

6]             It is an admitted case of the complainant that the total cost of the plot in question was Rs.40,50,355/- and the entire payment has been made to the OP Company.

7]             In our opinion, though the complainant had prayed for directing the OP to handover the physical possession of any alternative plot; interest @18% p.a. from the respective date of deposit till the date of realization of payment over the said deposited amount of Rs.40,50,355/- along compensation and litigation expenses, but the fact of the matter is that the actual value/cost of the plot in question, which admittedly has been transferred in the name of complainant by the OP Company, certainly exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction limit of this Forum, which is upto Rs.20.00 lacs only.

8]             Our own State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in F.A. No.208 of 2012, decided on 08.10.2012 - Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Mona Makin & Anr., has categorically held that “the pecuniary Jurisdiction, was required to be determined, on the basis of the aggregate value of the plot plus (+) compensation, claimed, as per Section 11(1) of the Act.”

9]             Furthermore, Section 11(1) of the C.P.Act, stipulates as under:-

“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.

(1)      Subject to 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 1[does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].

10]           In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as the settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, this complaint, being not maintainable, is dismissed with no order as to cost.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.