CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No. 202/2016
- Smt. Divya Dilwali
W/o Sh. Rajat Kumar Dilwali,
R/o 22, Jor Bagh,
New Delhi-110003.
- Rajat Kumar Dilwali,
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Dilwali,
New Delhi-110003.
…………. Complainants
Vs.
M/s. Piyush Colinisers Ltd.
A-1/B-1, Mohan Co-operative,
Industrial Estate,
Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
………..Respondents
Date of Order: 14.10.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The case of the complainant is that the complainant has booked an office space measuring 400 sq. ft. on the ground floor of project of OP in Sector-31, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad (Haryana). As per complainant, he has paid total sum of Rs. 24,16,800/- towards sale consideration for that office space and as per clause 4 of the agreement, the possession of the unit was to be handed over to the complainant on or about 28.02.2009 and in case of any delay of possession, the second party will continue to have benefit of Rs. 69,66 per sq. ft. per month till possession and after the payment of balance sale consideration. That as per condition 7 of the agreement, it was agreed upon by OP that OP shall give the assured rental return @ 69.66/- per sq. ft. per month i.e. Rs. 29,322/- to the second party. The assured rental return shall begin to run after the period of 24 months from the date of signing the agreement which will be continued upto next 7 years. The possession of the allotted premises was not given till today by OP but OP had been paying the agreed rent of Rs. 25,007/- per month after deducting TDS and has paid the sum of Rs. 27864/- till January, 2016 but thereafter the amount has not been paid. Complainant prayed that OP may be directed to give possession of the office space and also pay sum of Rs. 1,25,385/- being the agreed rental return @ 69.66/- per sq. ft. w.e.f. February, 2016 till June, 2016. Apart from that he has also sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation expenses Rs. 1,00,000/-.
On being asked as to how this forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Learned counsel has referred the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission in case Ashok Dilwali vs. ABW Infrastructure dated 28.07.2016 in appeal No. 319/2016. In that case, the space was booked for a total consideration of Rs. 53,90,275/- and in para 4 of the order it is specifically stated that the complainant is not seeking possession of the office space whereas in the present complaint, complainant is seeking the possession of the office space. Admittedly, the value of the office space was more than Rs. 20,00,000/- as he had paid a sum of Rs. 24,16,800/- for that office space. Apart from that, he is seeking damages of Rs. 5 lacs and litigation expenses of Rs. One lac. Relief sought by the complainant is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum. The present complaint is returned to the complainant with liberty to file before the Forum of appropriate Pecuniary Jurisdiction. File be consigned to record room.
(D.R TAMTA) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
