Delhi

New Delhi

CC/688/2013

Reasident's Welfare Association - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2019

ORDER

 

 

                                                 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.C.C./688/2013                                  Dated:

             In the matter of:

               Residents’ Welfare Association

              Ansal Golf Link II, Greater Noida,

             Gautam Budh Nagar(UP)

              Through its Presiddnt

             Col.(Retd.) Mehar Singh Dahiya

                             

 

Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

15, UGF, Indra Prakash Building,

21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01.

 

2.          GEO Connect Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

110, Indra PrakashBuilding,

21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01.

 

3.         Sunrise Estate Management Service,

Through its MD/CEO,

115, Indra PrakashBuilding,

21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01.

……. Opposite parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

By way of this order we are disposing the application filed on behalf of OP for rejection of the complaint.  It is argued on behalf of OP that the complainant is purportedly an association comprising members who are allottees of the residential units within the project.  It is further argued on behalf of OP that the complainant and its members stopped the payments towards maintenance charges  which due to non-payment accumulated  to Rs.2,77,94,447/- which is much beyond the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum i.e Rs.20,00,000/-, hence, in the light of  Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016 reported  as Manu/CF/0499/16, this district forum does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

2.     Reply to the application filed on behalf of complainant in which it is stated that the present complaint is of 2013. The objection of Pecuniary Jurisdiction  should be taken by the OP at the first instance, in the present complaint written statement was filed by OP long back and even the  evidence as well as written argument are  filed by the parties  and present complaint is pending for final argument, hence, the objection of Pecuniary Jurisdiction  is not sustainable in the eyes of Laws.  It is further argued on behalf of complainant that the present complaint has been filed to force the OPs to provide proper services.  It is also stated that the present occupancy of plot and flat buyers is less than 11% and the OP is submitting claim of maintenance charges to the tune of Rs.2,77,94,447/-.  However, the fact is most of the present occupier are regularly paying maintenance charges  to the OP.  Moreover, the OP wants to receive maintenance from the all buyers irrespective of their occupancy that too without maintaining roads, electricity, security and water supply etc., hence the present complaint has been filed  for direction to the concerned  OP to complete infrastructure as well as well provide the amenities  as per brochure.  It is further prayed that the application filed by the OP be dismissed with heavy cost.

 

3.     We have gone through the complaint as well as the relief claimed by the complainant.  The complainant at prayer clause a & b had sought a relief for directing the OP to complete the infrastructure and not to charge the maintenance charges from the complainant.  Admittedly, the complainant is a Welfare Association of 65 members, if we calculate, the relief claim by them it goes beyond the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum. 

4.     In view of the above discussion, we  are of the considered opinion  that relief claimed exceeds the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum.  Accordingly, the application filed by the OP is allowed and the complaint be returned to the complainant along with annexures/ documents by retaining a copy of the same for records with liberty to file the same before the competent Forum as per the Law. The particulars in the light of the judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 are as follows.

 

• Date of presentation of complaint :-    21/08/2013.

 

• Date of return of complaint :-               18/09/2019

 

• Name of complainant :-                RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION                                                           

 

Copy of the order be given Dasti to the parties.  File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced  in open Forum on 18/09/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                PRESIDENT

                                  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                     (H M VYAS)

                                                    MEMBER                                               MEMBER