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

======

Jawahar Lal Jain s/o Late Shri Babu Ram Jain, Resident of House NO.67, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     Emaar MGF Land Private Limited (EMAAR MGF), through its Manager, SCO 120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017

2]     Emaar MGF Land Private Limited (EMAAR MGF), through its Managing Director, Registered Office : MGF House, 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002

3]     The Director, EMAAR MGF Land Private Limited (EMAAR MGF), Corporate Office: ECE House, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, 1^st Floor, New Delhi 110001.

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                

PRESIDING MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    

  MEMBER

Argued by:        Sh.Kapil Kumar, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OPs.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,  MEMBER

                By this common order, we are disposing of 2 connected complaint cases, detailed below, as both are having the same controversy as well as the similar question of facts & law:-

2]             The facts are being taken from the present Complaint Case No.311 of 2012 – Jawahar Lal Jain vs. Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’

3]             Briefly stated,   the complainant, booked a Plot with OPs vide Application No.1424  in the project floated by the OPs and deposit a sum of Rs.10,35,000/-, whereupon he was allotted Plot NO.496 of 300 sq. yards in Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali Hills vide Provisional Allotment Letter dated 11.5.2007.  It is averred that the total cost of the plot was Rs.36,19,104/- including external development charges (Basic Price as Rs.34,50,000/- and external development charges as Rs.1,69,104/-).  The Plot Buyer’s Agreement was also entered into between the parties.  Thereafter, the complainant made payment of Rs.1,72,500/- each to OPs on 25.6.2007 and 5.3.2008.  It is pleaded that as per the Plot Buyer Agreement, the possession of the plot was to be delivered by OPs within 2 years from the date of execution of the agreement.  It is also pleaded that the complainant had visited the site in July, 2008 and found that the work at the site is not going as per Clause 23 of the Agreement.  Besides this, the OPs have neither delivered the possession of the plot in question till date nor refunded the deposited amount with interest.  A legal notice was also sent to the OPs, in this regard, but all in vain.  Hence,  this complaint.

2]             OPs filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is stated that the complainant himself failed to make payment despite reminders.  It is also stated that the plot was to be handed over within 3 years from the date of execution of agreement i.e. 4.7.2007.  Thus, the plot was to be handed over by 4.7.2010, if there were no defaults.  Therefore, being a defaulter, the complainant cannot claim any relief, as possession could not have been handed over to him due to default in payment to be made as per the terms & conditions.  It is submitted that the complainant was issued several reminders and Notice for making the payment (Ext.RW/B (colly) to RW/C (colly)), but inspite of that no payment has been made by the complainant after 2^nd installment, which is clear from the Account Statement Ext.RW/A. 

                It is pleaded that the development activities are going on across all sectors being developed by the OPs.  The OPs have already offered possession in a phased manner to those unit holders, where amenities have been completed as per terms & conditions of the agreement and moreover, where the allottees have made the payments as per the agreement.  It is also pleaded that as on the date of filing reply, there was outstanding amount of Rs.35,68,148/- against the complainant. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

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 merit of the case, we deem it appropriate to see whether the present complaint falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum or not.

6]             The complainant himself admitted in the complaint that the total cost of the plot in question was Rs.36,19,104/- including External Development charges. 

7]             Though the complainant had made payment of Rs.13,80,00/- only to the OPs against the said plot, but the actual value/cost for which the complainant had entered into agreement with the OPs, 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]             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.

10]            Similarly, the connected complaint case No.312 of 2012 – titled as Manju Jain vs. Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., is also barred by pecuniary jurisdiction.  Therefore, the same is also dismissed, without costs, being not maintainable.  

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

Manju Jain W/O Sh. Jawahar Lal Jain, Resident of House NO.67, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     Emaar MGF Land Private Limited (EMAAR MGF), through its Manager, SCO 120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017

2]     Emaar MGF Land Private Limited (EMAAR MGF), through its Managing Director, Registered Office : MGF House, 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002

3]     The Director, EMAAR MGF Land Private Limited (EMAAR MGF), Corporate Office: ECE House, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, 1^st Floor, New Delhi 110001.

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:      SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                  

PRESIDING MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       

  MEMBER

Argued by:        Sh.Kapil Kumar, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OPs.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,  MEMBER

                   For the reasons stated in our detailed order dated 19.10.2012  passed in Complaint Case No.311 of 2012 titled as ‘Jawahar Lal Jain Vs. Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Limited & Ors., this Complaint also stands dismissed. A copy of that order be placed on the record of this file, which shall be deemed to form a part of this order.

2]             Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges.  The file be consigned.