DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sh. Ashwani Chandna son of Shri Krishan Chander Chandna resident of H.No.94, Sec.11, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.     Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd., SCO 120-122, Sec.17-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director

2.     Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd., ECE House, #28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Director;

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Subhash Chander Sharma, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Ashwani Chandna has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Opp. Party may kindly be directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the respective date of deposit till the date of realization of payment over the total deposited amount of Rupees 67,50,590/- from the respective date till the date of handing over the possession of plot alongwith rupees 50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rupees 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

                        AND

It is further prayed that the Opp. Party may kindly be directed to hand over the physical possession of any alternative plot in Sector 105 and 108 in Mohali Hills, SAS Nagar, Pb. to the satisfaction of the complainant.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deems fit may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties intended to develop an integrated township at Mohali.  So, they acquired land in Sectors 105, 108 and 109 of Mohali.  The opposite parties also took necessary permissions and clearances from the concerned departments.  Thereafter, the opposite parties invited applications from the general public for purchase of plots of various sizes in the said proposed scheme.  In response thereto, the complainant applied for allotment of a plot in combined/joint scheme consisting of Sectors 105, 108 and 109 covered under the name and style ‘Mohali Hills.  He was allotted plot No.254, measuring 500 sq. yards @ Rs.11,500/- per sq. yard located in Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, District SAS Nagar, Punjab and the plot buyer agreement was executed on 4.7.2007.  It has been averred that as per the agreement, the opposite parties were to deliver possession of the plot within two years but not later than three years. 

                   According to the complainant, he had deposited an amount of Rs.67,50,590/- including the external development charges and Preference Location Charges (PLC) after which the provisional letter of allotment dated 26.9.2007 was issued.  It has been averred that the opposite parties intentionally allotted the plot to the complainant in Sector 109 where the land was not available. It has further been averred that the period of 2 years was completed on 4.7.2009 but still the opposite parties did not hand over the possession and there was no development.   According to the complainant he made several requests for handing over the possession but to no avail.

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In their written statement the opposite parties at the outset took preliminary objections with regard to the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  On merits it has been stated that the complainant was initially allotted a 400 sq. yard plot in Sector 109, Mohali. However, subsequently he requested for a 500 sq. yards plot vide letters dated 26.6.2007 and 10.7.2007.  Accordingly, revised allotment letter was issued to him on 26.9.2007.  It has been denied that the allotment was made to the complainant in Sector 109, Augusta Park intentionally or that there is no land available in the said sector.  It has been pleaded that the complainant was offered possession vide letter dated 1.7.2011 but he failed to take the same. The complainant was further told vide letter dated 16.12.2011 that he could initiate construction on his plot after obtaining sanction of building plans.  It has further been averred that the complainant was to be given possession by 4.7.2010 i.e. within three years of signing of the agreement and for any delay beyond three years the complainant is entitled to penalty in terms of clause 8 of the agreement.  It has been denied that they made any excuses regarding possession. 

                   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           The ld. Counsel for the opposite parties, at the very outset, argued that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter as the sale price of the unit is Rs.67,50,590/-.  In support of his contention the ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr.-II (1996) CPJ 103 (NC).  The operative part of the said judgment reads as under :-

 “In our view, where a claim of compensation is pleaded in a consumer complaint, then the total value of the goods and/ or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction. It is the aggregate value of the goods and compensation or the aggregate value of the services as well as that of compensation that determines the pecuniary jurisdiction. As we read the provisions of Section 17(1)(a) [and for that matter the provisions of Section 11(1) and Section 21(a)(i) which are in pari-materia the criteria of the value of goods or services if claimed without any compensation would govern the jurisdiction of the Consumer FORA. Where the complainant gives the value of the goods and compensation or the value of the services and compensation, then the question arises whether each one of them should exceed or cross the hurdle of the pecuniary jurisdiction. In some cases, the value of the goods or the compensation claimed and for that matter the value of the services and the compensation claimed may be such that if considered separately it will fall in the jurisdiction of the District Forum or State Commission whereas if considered on the basis of the aggregate, it may fall within the jurisdiction of National Commission or State Commission. The intention of the Legislature is to give the jurisdiction to the Consumer FORA based on the total “value” of the goods and compensation, if any, or in other case the value of the services and compensation if any. Any other interpretation would lead to conflict of jurisdiction. Even though the Legislature has not mentioned the word aggregate before the word value of the goods or services, in the context of provisions of the Act, the intention is clear to give jurisdiction based on the quantum of reliefs put together, in other words, aggregate of the value of the goods and compensation or aggregate of the value of services and compensation, or on the aggregate value of the goods and services and compensation”

6.                           The ratio of Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) has recently been followed by our own Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in its order dated 8.10.2012 passed in First Appeal No.208 of 2012. The Hon’ble State Commission, after going through the facts and circumstances of that case, in para 15 of its order held as under :-

                   “15.     …….….. In the instant case also, as stated above, the entire sale consideration of the plot, had already been paid by the complainants, to the opposite parties, alongwith External Development Charges, at the time of filing the complaint.   Under these circumstances, 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.  It is settled principle of law, that, it is for the Consumer Fora, to determine, as to whether, it had territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint……..”

7.                           In the present case also, admittedly the complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs.67,50,900/- including external development charges and preference location charges.      Here we would also like to refer to Section 11(1) of the Act which reads 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.”

The complainant in the present complaint, among other reliefs, has also sought the relief of physical possession of the alternative plot in Sector 105 and 108.   There is no denying the fact that as per the Plot Buyer’s Agreement (C-1), the total sale price of the plot (goods) is Rs.67,50,590/-.  Hence, we are of the opinion that in view of Section 11(1) of the Act, and the order passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has not been able to refer to any judgment to show that the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is made out.  

8.                           In view of the above discussion, without discussing the merits of the case, the present complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter.  Parties shall bear their own costs.

9.                           The complainant will be at liberty to approach the appropriate Authority, with proper jurisdiction, for redressal of his grievance.

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11.12.2012

 Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER