Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/667/2014

Charan Singh Saini son of Sh. Shiv Singh, resident of 74, Bellchase Trail, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Nandan Jindal

13 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/667/2014
Date of Institution	:	07/10/2014
Date of Decision	:	13/11/2015

 

Charan Singh Saini son of Sh. Shiv Singh, resident of 74, Bellchase Trail, Brampton, Ontario, Canada, through Special Power of Attorney Shri Sukhjit Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of Village Nabha Sahib, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, ECE House, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its CEO.

2.      M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, SCO No.120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Local Branch Head.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Nandan Jindal, Counsel for the complainant
		Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Counsel for OPs

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Charan Singh Saini, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that in the year 2005, the OPs had floated a scheme for allotment of residential plots under the name and style of Mohali Hills.

                According to the complainant, earlier one Sh. Gursharan Singh had purchased plot No.104-EP-93-250 measuring 250 sq. yards, total price of which was Rs.52,34,000/- from the OPs. Thereafter, the complainant purchased the said plot from him by making the remaining payment. On 27.4.2012 the OPs entered into a plot buyer’s agreement with the complainant.    The complainant has averred that despite making the payment of entire sale consideration of Rs.52,34,000/- way back in the year 2012, the OPs have not offered the possession to him.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint for directing the OPs to give possession of the plot alongwith compensation, damages etc.  

2.         In their joint written statement, OPs have taken a number of preliminary objections including that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It has been pleaded that the complainant is asking for relief of possession of plot (wrongly mentioned as 104-EP-93-250 instead of correct Plot No.104-EP-92-250). It has been averred that the provisional allotment was made in favour of the original allottee (Mr. Gursharan Singh) and only later on the documents were endorsed in favour of the complainant. It has been contended that the arrangement between the complainant and the original allottee was their own independent arrangement and after completion of documents/formalities, the transfer was accepted and unit was endorsed in favour of the complainant on 7.5.2012. It has been contended that till date an amount of Rs.50,22,000/- only has been paid by the original allottee against the sale price of the plot in question and an amount of Rs.5.60 lacs against the delayed payment charges.  It has been stated that the OPs had offered possession to the complainant on 16.10.2014, but, he failed to take the same and also did not make payment of the due amount.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated his own. It has been admitted that the OPs had offered possession on 16.10.2014, but, it has been contended that the same was not as per agreement. 
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have perused the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         A perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has claimed the following reliefs :-

“(i)    Direct the respondents to give the possession of the plot No.104-EP-93-250, measuring 250 sq. yards, Mohali Hills, Sector 104, SAS Nagar, Mohali as per Plot Buyers Agreement, alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. from April 2012 till the delivery of the possession as well as penalty @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month;

(ii)    Compensation/damages for a sum of Rs.3.0 lacs on account of mental agony, physical inconvenience and for shattering the plan of the complainant to shift to Mohali near the residence of his daughter, which in turn made them incur higher cost.

(iii)   Compensation of an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards the cost of filing of the present petition.

(iv)   Any other order or direction which in the facts and circumstances of the present case this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper be also passed.”

It is also pertinent that during the pendency of the present complaint, the complainant also filed an application dated 4.1.2015 directing the OPs to give the possession and adjust the revised EDC.  The learned counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that the actual relief sought by the complainant is of valuation of more than Rs.50.00 lakhs, therefore, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction.

7.         On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the OPs have offered the possession of the plot on 16.10.2014, but, they are liable to pay penal interest @ 18% per annum from 1.1.2013 to 16.10.2014 as well as penalty @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month and compensation for mental harassment and compensation for deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, therefore, this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
8.         After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we find considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the OPs and feel that the same must prevail. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the total price of plot No.104-EP-92-250 measuring 250 sq. yards is Rs.52,34,000/-. The complainant in his application dated 4.1.2015 has mentioned that the OPs in their letter of possession has directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.9,62,266/- including delayed payment charges after adjusting the reversed EDC i.e. Rs.2,51,000/-.  As per provisions of Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20.00 lakhs. In the instant case, the total value of the goods and/or services as well as that of compensation exceeds Rs.50.00 lakhs. It is also important to note that the complainant did not relinquish the claim of possession of the plot even in his rejoinder. The complaint was not maintainable before this Forum on the date of its filing itself, but, since the office had made a report that this Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction, therefore, it seems that through oversight, the complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the OPs. At any rate, the complainant has not amended the complaint nor sought withdrawal of the relief of possession of the plot by making a statement.  Since the possession of the plot is yet to be taken by the complainant, the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that the only issue involved is whether the OPs are liable to pay penal interest as well as penalty and compensation is devoid of any force.  Consequently, we are of the view that since this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint, therefore, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission. The original documents be returned to the complainant against receipt.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
13/11/2015		[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg		Member	President