Case No. 188/2021   

IN THE MATTER OF

Smt. Rashimi Mittal W/o Sri Atishay Mittal age about 28 years R/o 1/F infront of Chandr Cinema Ghandhi Park, Agra Road Par. And the. Koil, Aligarh (Through: Advocate Santosh Kumar Mathur)

                                                         V/s

1. Sachiv, Ghaziabad Vikas Pradhikan, Vikas Path near Purana Bus Stand, Ghaziabad
2. Sampati Prabhari Adhikari, Ghaziabad Vikas Pradhikan, Vikas Path near Purana Bus Stand, Ghaziabad                                                                                     

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1. The Op be directed to deliver possession of the House No. K 9 /B 440 under the Koyal Enclave Scheme at Ghaziabad.

or

          the op be directed  to repay the value of flat amounting Rs.2600000 with interest @18% per annum from 4.2.2017

2. The Op be directed to pay compensation Rs.1000000/ (Rs. Ten Lakh) .
3. The Op be directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.11000/.

2. The Complainant has stated that she had applied for a flat under Koyal Enclave Scheme of UP Government and she had paid the amount Rs.50550/ on 13.10.2015 as registration fee of the flat. Complainant was allotted the flat on 27.1.2017 and made the payment of the amount Rs.2198175 on 04.2.2017 and thereafter made the payment of the amount Rs.189963 on 5.12.2020. She had paid the required amount, but she was not given possession of the flat and thereby caused economic, physical and mental sufferings. Complainant was deprived from occupation deflect which could be let out on rent at Rs.25000 per month and as such economic loss  caused to the complainant be assessed as Rs.800000 and compensation for harassment at Rs.200000.Complainant was under obligation to handover the possession of flat after construction but the op had failed to discharge their obligation.
3. Ops submitted in WS that the complainant has been delivered the possession of the flat on 9.8.2021 after execution of the deed on 12.7.2021 in favor of the complainant as per terms and condition of brochure the courts at  Ghaziabad have jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute. Ops have further stated that the complainant had paid the registration amount Rs.50550 voluntarily and was allotted flat on 27.1.2017. Having paid the entire amount and completion  of all the formalities the lease deed was executed on 12.7.2021 in favor of complainant. Complainant has got the possession on 9.8.2021 and the case has been filed to harass the Ops.  
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. It is evident that the complainant was allotted the flat on 27.1.2017 and possession was not  still handed over whereas the possession was to be handed by the month June,2019 as per letter dated 1.1.2019 issued by the Op and at the most the possession was to be delivered within three years for the date of allotment made 27.1.2017 but the op has failed to hand over the possession of the flat till today. As such there has been delay in handing over possession of the flat. As the flat could be easily let out on rent at Rs.25000 per month and therefore loss was caused to the complainant on account of delay in delivery of possession of the flat. Thus the complainant  is entitled for reimbursement for depriving the complainant from use and enjoyment of the flat at the amout paid with interest 18% per annum on failure to deliver the possession  of  the flat.  
8. The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainat.
9. The second  question of consideration before us is whether the commission has jurisdiction to hear and decide the present case?
10.  The question of jurisdiction is statutory and jurisdiction is conferred on court or tribunal by the Act and not by consent or agreement of the parties. Any terms or conditions laid down in any document of party cannot be treated as the Act and have no value to confer the jurisdiction. The commission is vested with jurisdiction to hear and decide the present case under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Thus the commission is competent to hear and decide the present case. 
11. We hereby direct the Ops to pay the amount  Rs. 2438688 to the complainant with interest @18 % per annum from 27.1.2020 till the date  of actual payment. OPs shall also pay to the complainant Rs.11000/for litigation expenses  and compensation for harassment Rs.25000/.
12. Ops shall comply with the direction within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment