Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1058/2016

NAVIN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S OMAXE LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH KUMAR

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:10.11.2016

Complaint Case No. 1058/2016           In the Matter of:              Navin Kumar          S/o Mr. K.P. Yadav          R/o E-457, G.K.  II, 2nd Floor,          New Delhi-110019                                                                             ……Complainant                                                Versus       1. M/s Omaxe Ltd. Through its Managing Director Corporate Office: 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019   2. Rohtas Goel Chairman and Managing Director M/s Omaxe Ltd. Corporate Office: 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019   3. Sunil Goel Joint Manaing Director M/s Omaxe Ltd. Corporate Office: 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019   4. Jai Bhagwan Goel Whole Time Director M/s Omaxe Ltd. Corporate Office: 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019   5. Mohit Goel Chief Executive Officer M/s Omaxe Ltd. Corporate Office, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019                                                                       …Opposite Parties

  CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

        In this complaint following prayer has been made by the complainant:

         “i. Pass an award directing the Opposite Parties to return the money paid to them by the Complainant till date i.e. Rs. 66,07,440/- (Rupees Sixty Six lacs seven thousand four hundred and forty only) alongwith interest 18@% per annum from the date of allotment i.e. 05.06.2007 till the date of payment made by the Opposite parties;

        ii. Award a compensation for mental and physical harassment which is qualified as a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Only) in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party;

        iii. Award the cost of litigation in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party;

        iv. Pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in interest of justice.”

        Counsel for the complainant states that though he has claimed refund of amount with 18% interest but the OP had assured Rs. 49,555/- monthly return on the aforesaid amount from the date of allotment i.e. 05.06.2007 as such instead of 18% interest, the assured return of Rs. 49,555/- p.m. be taken into consideration w.e.f. 05.06.2007.

        Ld. counsel has referred to page 29 of the paper book. Even if monthly return as is alleged is taken into consideration the refund of amount along with monthly return as is agreed between the parties from date of allotment i.e. 05.06.2007 till today and adding to it principal amount i.e. 66,07,440/- exceeds 1 Crore.

        In these circumstances, we do not have pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint. The complaint stands dismissed. The complainant shall be at liberty to file fresh complaint at appropriate forum in accordance with law.

        Original documents, if any, annexed with the complaint be returned to the complainant.

        File be consigned to record room.

       

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member