Haryana

Panchkula

CC/114/2016

MONIKA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D BCL HOMES ETC. - Opp.Party(s)

MOHAN SHARMA.

22 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No		114 of 2016
Date of Institution		11/05/2016
Date of Decision		22/12/2016

 

Mrs. Monika Garg aged 42 years wife of Sh. Sanjeev Garg, resident of apartment No. 303 Tower 8 Royal Estate, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar Mohali.  

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

 

1.       BCL Homes Ltd. through its Director Regd. Office Shop No 140 Village  Darua Chandigarh 160002.

2.       Baldev Chand Bansal, Director BCL Homes Ltd. R/o House No 253 Sector 7  Panchkula 134109.

3.       Gopal Bansal son of Baldev Chand Bansal BCL Homes Ltd. Kishanpura adjoining, Sector 20 Panchkula NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali (Pb)

4.       Rajeev Kumar, Authorized Representative, BCL Homes Ltd., R/o Flat No. 2218, Pepsu Society, Sector 50 C, Chandigarh.

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Mohan Sharma, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Amandeep Bindra, Adv., for the Ops

 

ORDER

 

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant Monika Garg under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that she had booked a flat at Mohali before the office of Ops and she paid a sum of rupees mentioned as under

Receipts/Cheque	Date	Name of Banks	Amounts
006605	29.07.2011	Allahabad Bank	Rs. 50,000
006605	31.07.2011	Do	Rs. 1.0 lac
002053	03.09.2011	Cash	Rs. 1,50,000/
002529	03.10.2011	Cash	Rs. 1.0 Lac
Total Amount	-	.	Rupees Four Lacs

A total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid to the Ops for plan 40 lacs on 0% interest. The OP booked the Apartment in Chinar Urban Ville CUV project in District Mohali under lucky draw scheme and absurd terms and conditions of draw. Shri Raman Gupta Authorized Representative, Distributer and Channel Partner of the OP had issued receipts. As per the settlement of the parties a promise was made and it was assured that the project should be completed within one year otherwise paid amount would be refunded alongwith interest. The complainant visited several times the office of Ops for refund of amount as there was no progress on the site and the apartment of the complainant was cancelled vide letter dated 21.05.2015. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that this forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is submitted that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is submitted the present compliant is not maintainable. It is submitted that the complainant was time and again called upon the agreement to sell in order to settle the terms and conditions. It is submitted that the complainant had signed the document after understanding the contents. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint
3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C A alongwith documents Annexure C 1 to C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. Admittedly, the complainant had booked a flat at Mohali before the office of Ops and she paid a sum of rupees mentioned as under:-

Receipts/Cheque	Date	Name of Banks	Amounts
006605	29.07.2011	Allahabad Bank	Rs. 50,000
006605	31.07.2011	Do	Rs. 1.0 lac
002053	03.09.2011	Cash	Rs. 1,50,000/
002529	03.10.2011	Cash	Rs. 1.0 Lac
Total Amount	-	.	Rupees Four Lacs

 

A total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ was paid to the Ops for plan 40 lacs on 0% interest Annexure C 6. The OP booked the Apartment in Chinar Urban Ville CUV project in District Mohali under lucky draw scheme and absurd terms and conditions of draw. Shri Raman Gupta Authorized Representative, Distributer and Channel Partner of the OP had issued receipts. As per the settlement of the parties a promise was made and it was assured that the project should be completed within one year otherwise paid amount would be refunded alongwith interest. The complainant visited several times to the office of Ops for refund of amount as there was no progress on the site and the apartment of the complainant was cancelled vide letter dated 21.05.2015. Perusal of the file as well as documents submitted by the parties reveals that the total consideration of flat purchased by the complainant is Rs. 45,00,000/ Annexure C 6 which is agreed to be paid by the complainant. As per Annexure C 6 it is clear that Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

6. Before examining the case on merit we will refer to Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum

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  laks.

7. The above provision clearly mandates that this Forum can entertain and decide the complaint, the value of goods is less than Rs. 20,00,000/- at the time of filing the same. From the perusal of the Annexure C6 the value of the flat in question was Rs. 45,00,000/- and it is clear that the complainant sought directions from this Forum for refund of amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and compensation Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and a sum of Rs. 6500/- as litigation expenses. 
8. On the point of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, it is brought to our notice that a latest judgment has been passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016. The relevant portion of the abovesaid  judgment reads as under

“Reference dated 11.8.2016

Issue No. i

     It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

Xxxxxxxx

Issue No. iii

     The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.”

9. In view of the above guidelines, the value of the services in the instant case is Rs. 45,00,000/-.  The complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 4,21,500/- Rs. 4,00,000/-+ Rs. 15,000/-+ Rs. 6500/-. In view of the above, it is clear that total value of consideration and compensation claimed by the complainant exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 20,00,000/- of this forum. Therefore, it is clear that this forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.
10. In view of the above, it is held that the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs, being not maintainable before this Forum for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate authority having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED

  22.12.2016                                      ANITA KAPOOR           DHARAM PAL

                                                MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         

                                                                        DHARAM PAL

                                                            PRESIDENT