Delhi

New Delhi

CC/532/2011

Shalini Tekriwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. BPTP Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                              (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                               ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                            NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C./532/2011`                                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

Shalini Tekriwal,

W/o Sh. Ashish Tekriwal

R/o A 196-C, Ist floor

Opposite Gurudwara,

Ramprastha Colony,

Ghaziabad (U P)…… Complainant

 

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

1. M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd.

BPTP, Through its Managing Director,

M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

2. M/s Dua Properties,

Through its Proprietor,

B- 687, Green Field Colony,

Faridabad, Haryana……. Opposite party

 

 

 

 

 

                     

                    H.M.VYAS  - MEMBER

ORDER

The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying for the following  relief to :-

1. Direct the OP 1  to allot the plot bearing No. S4-48 in their project “PARKLAND” Faridabad, (Haryana) or anyother alternative plot in the same locality on  the name of  complainant;
2.  Direct the Opposite Parties to  pay the damages to the tune of  Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant  on account of unnecessary harassment, mental agony, pain suffered by the complainant due to illegal and unlawful acts of opposite parties;
3. Pass an order against the opposite parties in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and also on account of deficient  in service rendered by the Opposite parties along with cost of the proceedings, as this Hon’ble may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

It is alleged that the complainants are the consumers and booked a plot measuring 250 sq. yards @ Rs. 8500/- per sq. yds.at the OP’s project “PARKLANDS’ situated at Faridabad and paid in casha sum of Rs.4,70,000/- on 28/01/06 to the OP No. 2. It is stated that the complainant on directions of the OP paid Rs. 4,84,375/- through cheque dt.31/01/06 and Rs 4,25,000/- vide cheque dt 14/06/06.It is alleged that as per the schedule of payment an amount of Rs. 22,96,890/- was required to be paid by the complainant. The OP1 sent a letter dt. 20/11/10 informing that the plot No. S4-48 had been allotted in the project butthe payment of Rs. 4,70,000/- paid in cash was not shown as received by the Op1.The complainant sent e-mails reminders and personal visits informing that she is ready to pay the entire balance amount but the request of the complainant was not given heed. The OP has filed version/ written statement and raised objections denying the allegations made in the complaint.It is however, statedinpara “D” of the preliminary objection in reply to complaint that the complainant paid Rs. 4,70,000/- to OP2 and not to OP1, and denied the receipt of the said amount. After cancellation of the allotment due to continued default in making payment of the outstanding dues,OP1 sent a refund of Rs 8,56,260/- after deduction of brokerage vide cheque datedc22/04/2011 as mentioned in the Op’s letter dt. 11/5/11 for full and final settlement.

 

The complainant filed the rejoinder and denied the text and contentions of the OP which are contrary to the averments made by the complainant and affirmed the averments made in the complaint. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit affirming their averments & contentions. The case is at the stage of final arguments and the Op has moved application for dismissal of the complaint as the subject matter of the complaint exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum being more than 20,00,000/-.During the course of arguments on behalf the OP it is stressed that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ambrish Shukla & others Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Consumer Case No. 97/2016, decided on 07/10/16) reported as Manu/CF/0499/2016 since the value of the subject matter is beyond Rs. 20,000,00/- and referred to section 11of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which readsas below:-

Section11:- (1) Subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ( does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs) .

2.  

       

Attention is also drawn to para 14 of the said judgment which is reproduced as under:-

                                         

“It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction bases upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing thesaid defect is Rs. 10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs. 1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and cost of removing those defects is Rs. 5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs. 1.00 crore.”

The Hon’ble National Commission has reiterated its view in the case of Raj Kishore Vs TDI reported as III(2017)CPJ 155 and also in Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Narayan Biswal (FA No. 1616/2017) decided on 30/08/17.

The counter argument on behalf of the complainant is that the said judgement is not applicable to his case as the complaint had already been admitted way back in the year 2014 and the judgement of Ambrish Shukla (SUPRA) has come in the year 2016 and therefore it has only the prospective effect as such this Forum is competent to entertain the complaint. We do not agree with the argument on behalf of the complainant that the judgment of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (SUPRA) is not applicable to the present case for the reason that the Hon’ble National Commission has interpreted the law which is to be applied in the facts & circumstances of the case. It is pointed out that the judgment in the case of Ambrish Shukla case is directly applicable to the case in hand, to our view. The Hon’ble State Commission has also ordered return of the Complaint as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ambika Steels Ltd. Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (CC No. 119/2012) vide orders dated 11/12/2017.

 

We have given due consideration to the material placed before us and the arguments addressed along with relevant provisions of law.We are of the considered view that the complainant agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 22,96,890/- (para 12 of complaint) against the plot which is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum and hold accordingly.

The particulars of this case in the light of the decision  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 20 are as under:-

• Presentation of complaint:-

Before this District Forum on 06/05/2014

• Date of return of complaint  29/01/2018

• The name of complainant(s)

ATUL KUMAR AGGARWAL &ORS

H. No. 246-R, MODEL TOWN

YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA

 

Brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint.

As per the judgement in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble NCDRC has held that in case where even part of deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary Jurisdiction. In the present complaint, it is clear that  the cost of the flat is more than 20 lacs and as such  the aggregate value of the  alleged flat and reliefs  claimed exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Forum.

Keeping in view provision of law and the law laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC referred to above, we hold that this Forum lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this case and accordingly we order return of the complaint to file it before the appropriate forum.

Copy of the order may be sent to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on29/01/2018. 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                             PRESIDENT

 

                (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                               (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                           MEMBER