Loading..
Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • For the Complainant: Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate
  • Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advocate
  • For the Opp. Party: Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Advocate
  • Ms. Tannya Baranwal, Advocate
Judges
  • V.K Jain, Presiding Member
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • For the Complainant: Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate
  • Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advocate
  • For the Opp. Party: Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Advocate
  • Ms. Tannya Baranwal, Advocate
Judges
  • V.K Jain, Presiding Member
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainants are allottees of residential flats in the Canary Greens project developed by the opposite party in Sector 73, Gurgaon. Each complainant entered into an individual but identical Agreement to Sell with the opposite party, which stipulated possession within 36 months plus a six-month grace period for unforeseen delays. Possession was not delivered as agreed, prompting the complainants to file individual complaints before this Commission seeking possession, alternatively a ready-to-move apartment or payment of the current market rate, along with compensation for delay and mental agony.

The opposite party opposed the complaints, raising a preliminary objection on pecuniary jurisdiction grounds, alleging delayed payments by complainants and attributing construction delays to reasons beyond its control.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether this Commission has the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the agreed sale consideration does not exceed Rs.1 crore.
  2. Whether service tax and VAT paid by the complainants should be included in determining the value of the service under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. Whether the complainants are entitled to refund or possession and compensation for delay under the circumstances of these cases.
  4. The appropriate procedural course for complaints that do not fall within this Commission's pecuniary jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

  • They seek possession of the allotted flats or alternatively a ready-to-move flat of identical size or payment of the current market value, alleged to be Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft.
  • They claim compensation for delay in possession at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month and interest @ 18% p.a. on amounts paid.
  • They seek compensation for mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service.

Opposite Party's Arguments

  • Preliminary objection that the Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction as the sale consideration does not exceed Rs.1 crore.
  • Allegation that complainants delayed payments and are thus not entitled to specific performance or possession.
  • Construction delays were due to reasons beyond their control, including complainants' delayed payments.
  • Service tax and VAT should not be included in the valuation of the service under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, which requires the value of goods or services and compensation claimed to exceed Rs.1 crore. The court rejected the complainants' claim of Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft. market value due to lack of credible evidence such as price lists or comparable valuations. It held that basing jurisdiction on such unsubstantiated claims is improper.

The court further clarified that although jurisdiction is ordinarily based on complaint averments, it will not entertain complaints with exaggerated or fanciful claims intended only to invoke jurisdiction improperly. It distinguished claims for refund with interest @ 18% p.a. and claims for possession with interest @ 12% p.a. as maintainable if they exceed Rs.1 crore.

Regarding valuation, the court held that service tax and VAT paid to the opposite party must be included in determining the value of the service, as these payments are part of the consideration payable to the developer and necessary for possession to be delivered.

The court found no material evidence from the opposite party justifying the construction delay as beyond its control.

On the basis of statements from complainants’ counsel, the court categorized complaints into three groups: those where pecuniary jurisdiction exists and complainants seek refund, those where complainants seek possession, and those where jurisdiction does not exist. It issued directions accordingly.

For complaints within jurisdiction and seeking refund, the court directed the opposite party to refund amounts paid with 10% simple interest and litigation costs within three months. For complaints within jurisdiction and seeking possession, the court directed completion and possession by 30.04.2018 with 8% interest compensation and litigation costs.

For complaints outside jurisdiction, the court directed their return to complainants for filing before the State Commission, with instructions to the State Commission to decide them afresh considering existing pleadings and evidence, allowing additional evidence if needed. The court fixed a date for appearance before the State Commission and requested expeditious disposal.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is as follows:

  • DISPOSED OF the complaints where pecuniary jurisdiction exists with directions for refund with interest or possession with compensation and litigation costs.
  • RETURNED the complaints outside the pecuniary jurisdiction to the complainants for presentation before the State Commission with directions for fresh adjudication.

The direct effect is that complainants entitled to refund or possession within pecuniary limits will receive relief from this Commission, while others must pursue remedies before the State Commission. No new precedent was set; rather, the court applied existing jurisdictional principles and procedural fairness to manage a large batch of similar complaints.

Show full summary ...

    Dushyant Kumar Gupta v. Today Homes & Infrastructure Private Limited

    NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

    NEW DELHI

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 198 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. DUSHYANT KUMAR GUPTA

    R/o L- 601, Scotish Garden, Niho Construction Ltd, Ahinsha Khand 2, Indrapuram

    Ghaziabad

    Uttar Pradesh ...........Complainant(s)

    Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    through its Managing Director Registered Office Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barkhamba Road.

    New Delhi

    Delhi 110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 1245 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. NIHAR RANJAN SAHOO

    FLAT NO. 363, TOWER-10, HEWO APARTMENT-II, GH- 41, SECTOR-56,

    GURGAON(HARYANA) ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS MD) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 793 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

    HOUSE NO. 27, SECTOR-29, FARIDABAD, HARYANA. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 794 OF 2015

    1

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SHASHI KANT RATTAN PAL

    C-135, FIRST FLOOR SECTOR-51,MAY FIELD GARDEN, GURGAON, HARYANA. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 795 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SUNIL PURI

    A-201, BHAWANI CGHS, GH-91, SECTOR-54, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 796 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. VIPIN AGGARWAL

    GOPAL SADAN, GALI NO. 4, BHUPINDER PURI,

    MODINAGAR ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 797 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ASIM SACHDEVA

    458, Sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR, ...........Opp.Party(s)

    2

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 798 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SATISH KUMAR VERMA

    PV TRADING CO., NEAR RAILWAY CROSSING ,

    GURGAON-144409(PUNJAB) ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 799 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SANJAY AHUJA

    FLAT NO. 27, SHIV SHANDI CGHS. SEC.-21-C,PART-3, FARIDABAD ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 800 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ANKUR NARANG

    E-288, 9TH FLOOR, GK-2, DELHI-110048 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 801 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RAVINDER KUMAR MEHROTRA

    T-4/604, ORCHID PETAL'S, ...........Complainant(s)

    3

    GURGAON-122018 Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 802 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ANKIT AGARWAL& ANR. 2/872-A, POST OFFICE ROAD, NEAR PUNJAB HOTEL, SAHARANPUR-247001 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 803 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. TARAN KUMAR BINDAL

    F-1005, WEMBLEY ESTATE. SEC.-50, ROSE WOOD CITY, GURGAON HARYANA ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD, (THROUGH ITS M.D.)

    STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR, BARAKHAMBA

    ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 804 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. DEEPESH SACHDEVA & ANR. I-30, F.F. MAYFIELD GARDEN, SEC.-51, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    4

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 805 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SHAILENDER SINGH SHEKHAWAT

    38.G.F., LILA, SEC.-49, GURGAON. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 806 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ADHISH KAPOOR & ANR. 122/1, VIJAY NAGAR, JAGRAON, LUDHIANA-1426 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 807 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ACHAL SANGAL

    H. NO. 365,FF,SEC.-15, PART-I, GURGAON. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 808 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. CHARAN SINGH & ANR. 1606,GF, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, SECTOR-10A, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    5

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 809 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RUKMANI GUPTA

    FLAT NO. A-606, GARDENIA GREENS,SECTOR-18,

    VASUNDHARA,

    GHAZIABAD-201012(U.P.) ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 810 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. HEMANT KUMAR

    1054,FF, SEC.-46, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 811 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SACHIN MALHOTRA

    R/o. D-76, IIF The Palldions Mayfield Garden Sec-102, Grugaon - 122 018 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through Its Managing Director, Registered Office, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

    Nwe Delhi - 110 001. ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 812 OF 2015

    WITH

    6

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. TRIBHAWAN NATH BHAN

    S/o. Shir Triloki Nath Bhan, R/o. 103, Jasmanium - 2, Vatika City, Sohna Road,

    Gurgaon ...........Complainant(s)

    Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through Its Managing Director, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

    Nwe Delhi - 110 001. ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 813 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SUMIT KUMAR SOMANI

    Son of Prakash Somani, Bungalow No. B-34, Shalimar Tourship AB Road,

    Indore - 452 010

    MP ...........Complainant(s)

    Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through its Managing Director, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,.

    New Delhi - 110 001. ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 814 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA

    R/o. 30, South Park Kalkaji, New Delhi 191 404 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through Its Managing Director, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

    New Delhi - 110 001. ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 815 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ASHUTOSH KUMAR

    R/o. CL 403, ELDECO Tower, Green Meadows, Greater Noida

    U.P. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    7

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through Its Managing Director, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

    New Delhi - 110 001. ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 816 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. PARVEEN KUMAR AGARWAL

    M-17/A, 1st Floor Today Homes, Blossom-2, Sect 51, Gurgaon ...........Complainant(s)

    Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through Its Managing Director, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

    New Delhi - 110 001. ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 817 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RANJEET PASSI

    C-10/3, 1st Floor, Ardee City, Sec-52, Gurgaon ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through Its Managing Directo, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

    New Delhi - 110 001. ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 818 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. BHARAT MADAN

    Flat No. 302, Alaknanda Appts, Sector - 56, Gurgaon ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through Its Managing Director, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

    New Delhi - 110 001.

    2. MR. Anil Bhalla Chairman & Wholetime Direcotr, Vatika Limited, 4th Floor, Vatika Triangle, Sushant Lok, Phase - I, Block A, M.G. Road, ...........Opp.Party(s)

    8

    Guragon - 122 002. Haryana

    3. Unistar Estates 62, Sahara Mall, Mehraulli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon - 122 002.

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 819 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. PRANAB KUMAR BAL

    G-101, Bhagyawan Apartments, Mayur VIhar, Phase - 1, Delhi ...........Complainant(s)

    Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through Its Managing Director, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

    Nwe Delhi - 110 001. ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 820 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. NARESH KUMAR

    Mahagun Mainsion - 1, 525, Mentova, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    Through Its Managing Director, Statesman House, 8th Floor, Barkahamba Road,

    New Delhi - 110 001. ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 821 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. MANJU GUPTA & ANR.

    503A, ANSAK CHAMBER II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,

    NEW DELHI-110066. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 822 OF 2015

    WITH

    9

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. MANASI GUPTA

    A-3, 404,TULIP WHITE, SECTOR-69, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 823 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RICHA RATHI

    BUNGLOW NO. B-34, SHALIMAR TOWNSHIP, AB

    RAOD,

    INDORE-452010 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 824 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ASHISH SETHI & ANR. C-371/B, SHUSHANT LOK-1, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 825 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SUNIL KUMAR SINGHVI

    G-102, JMO GARDEN, SECTOR-33, SOHNA ROAD, GURGAON. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ...........Opp.Party(s)

    10

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 826 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. MANOJ KUMAR KHERA

    R-511, JALVAYU VIHAR,SEC.-56, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 827 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RUCHI SHARMA

    30, SOUTH PARK APARTMENTS,

    KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 828 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. AMIT KHANNA

    FLAT NO. 60, NALANDA APARTMENTS, D BLOCK,

    VIKAS PURI,

    NEW DELHI-110018. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 829 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA ...........Complainant(s)

    11

    C-31, SHIV BHOLE APARTMENTS, PLOT NO. 20, SEC-7,

    DWARKA.

    Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 830 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. NAVDEEP SACHDEVA

    C-3, 6/91, SECTOR-4, RAJENDER NAGAR, SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 831 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. BIBHUTI RANJAN PRADHAN

    C4B31, CARLTON ESTATE-IV, DLF PHASE V, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 832 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ANAND MOHAN TIWARI

    M-239, GH, ORCHID ISLAND,SECTOR-51, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    12

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 833 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. PRATIP FRANCIS

    FLAT NO. A-103, SUKRITI APARTMENTS, SEC.-56, GURGAON-122011,HARYANA ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 834 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ANKIT AHUJA & ANR. F-10/2, 3RD FLOOR, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110017 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 835 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. VIVEK GUPTA & ANR. C-310, KENDRIYA VIHAR, SECTOR-56, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 839 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RAJAT MEHTA

    HOUSE NO. 3242, 1ST FLOOR, SECTOR-23, GURGAON. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    13

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 840 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SAJJAN KUMAR GUPTA

    A-504, MAYANK APARTMENT, SECTOR-6, PLOT NO. 21,

    DWARKA,

    NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 841 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RAJESH KUMAR

    A-1/52, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110017 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 842 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. VIJAY PAL SINGH RATHORE

    J-180,GF, MAYFIELD GARDENS, SECTOR-51, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 843 OF 2015

    WITH

    14

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SUMIT ANAND

    HOUSE NO. 1177, SECTOR-79, FARIDABAD-121002 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 844 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RAHUL KUMAR TIWARI

    R/O. 10350, DOVER STREET, K17, WESTMINSTER, C0,80021,USA ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 845 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. SONAM TSHERING

    37, D POCKET, SIDDHARTHA EXTENTION

    NEW DELHI-110041 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 846 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RAJAT GUPTA

    A2/02,FF,LILAC-2, SECTOR-49,SOHNA ROAD, GURGAON ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR, ...........Opp.Party(s)

    15

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 847 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. VISHAL SINGH

    GC-902, ADITYA MEGACITY,INDRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 848 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. AURBIND PAL SINGH

    HOUSE NO. 80, BLOCK-I, SARABHA NAGAR, LUDHIANA-141001 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 849 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. RAGHUNATH LAL MEHNDIRATTA

    73, SANSKRIT NAGAR, SECTOR-14, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    CONSUMER CASE NO. 850 OF 2015

    WITH

    IA/1296/2016,IA/4504/2015,IA/6084/2015

    1. ASHISH RAIZADA

    418, JASMINE STREET, VATIKA CITY, SECTOR-49. ...........Complainant(s)

    16

    Versus

    1. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE

    LIMITED

    (THROUGH ITS M.D.) STATESMAN HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

    NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)

    BEFORE:

    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Complainant : Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advocate

    For the Opp.Party : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Advocate Ms. Tannya Baranwal, Advocate

    Dated : 31 Jan 2017

    ORDER

    JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

    The complainants in these matters are the allottees of residential flats in a project, namely Canary Greens, which the opposite party is developing in Sector 73 of Gurgaon. All of them were allotted one residential flat each in the aforesaid project and all of them entered into individual but identical agreements with the opposite party on different dates. As per clause 21 of the Agreements to Sell, the possession of the flats was to be delivered within 36 months of the execution of the agreement but the opposite party was also entitled to a grace period of six months for unforeseen delays beyond its control, including though not limited to delays in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate/Completion Certificate. The possession of the flats having not been offered to them, the complainants have approached this Commission by way of these individual complaints. All the complainants have sought possession of the flats allotted to them or in the alternative a ready to move apartment of identical size in a similar locality or payment of the current market rate of similar houses which is alleged to be Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft. as the second alternative. They are also seeking payment of rental value of the apartment and compensation in the form of interest @ 18% p.a. They are further seeking compensation for the delay in delivery of the possession, @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month as per the agreements to sell executed with the opposite party. They are also seeking separate compensation for the mental agony and harassment alleged to have been caused to them on account of the deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering services to them, by not giving possession of the flats within the time stipulated in the agreements to sell.

    2. The complaints have been opposed on identical grounds. The opposite party has taken a preliminary objection that since the agreed sale consideration was not more than Rs.1 crore, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. It is also alleged that the complainants having delayed the payment of the sale consideration, they are not entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement by claiming possession of the residential flats allotted to them. It is also alleged that the construction of the flats has been delayed on account

    17

    of reasons beyond the control of the opposite party including the failure of the allottees to make timely payment of the sale consideration.

    3. The table appended herein below, according to the complainants, shows the agreed sale consideration inclusive of service tax and VAT, agreed sale consideration exclusive of service tax and VAT and the committed date of possession as per the agreement to sell.

    Sale Sale consideration Committed date Sl. No. CC No. Name of consideration exclusive of of possession Complainants inclusive of S.T. including the S.T. & VAT grace period

    & VAT

    1. 198/15 Dushyant Kumar Gupta 7134607 6858360 7.6.2014
    2. 793/2015 Rajesh Kumar Gupta 7408222 7112150 3.6.2014
    3. 794/2015 Shashikant Rattanpal 8943172 8579920 0.6.2014
    4. 795/2015 Sunil Puri 7350654 7060080 9.6.2014
    5. 796/2015 Vipin Aggarwal 7256346 6978080 7.6.2014
    6. 797/2015 Aseem Sachdeva 7475249 7179800 2.6.2014
    7. 798/2015 Satish Kumar Verma 7316956 7030150 2.6.2014
    8. 799/2015 Sanjay Ahuja 6623678 6379480 2.8.2014
    9. 800/2015 Ankur Narang 9207262 8826300 9.6.2014

    10. 801/2015 Ravindra Kumar Mehrotra 8588680 8244300 2.3.2015
    11. 802/2015 Ankit Agarwal 8702394 8341300 9.6.2014

    18

    12 803/2015 Tarun Kumar Bindal 5891622 5648625 5.6.2014
    13 804/2015 Deepesh Sachdev 5823292 5584875 4.6.2014
    14 805/2015 Shailendra Singh Shekhawat 5723878 5491800 7.2.2015
    15 806/2015 Adish Kapoor 7310481 7000220 7.6.2014
    16 807/2015 Achal Sangal 7507265 7179800 7.8.2014
    17 808/2015 Charan Singh 11362152 10888400 9.1.2015
    18 809/2015 Rukmani Gupta 8606355 8252060 4.8.2014

    19 810/2015 Hemant Kumar 5812415 5572703 1.09.2014
    20 811/2015 Sachin Malhotra 7477880 7153150 8.8.2014
    21 812/2015 Tribhawan Nath Bhan 8588390 8244300 4.4.2015
    22 813/2015 Sumit Kumar Somani 5820012 5584875 2.6.2014
    23 814/2015 Suresh Chander Sharma 8654575 8296680 5.6.2014
    24 815/2015 Ashutosh Kumar Jain 5723046 5491800 3.9.2014
    25 816/2015 Parveen Kumar Agarwal 5697345 5462475 5.8.2014
    26 817/2015 Ranjeet Passi 7331452 7041220 9.6.2014
    27 818/2015 Bharat Madan 7214187 6918220 9.6.2014

    19

    28 819/2015 Pranab Kumar Bal 7381365 7097800 4.6.2014
    29 820/2015 Naresh Kumar Sharma 5727450 5491800 9.6.2014
    30 821/2015 Manju Gupta 7485969 7179800 5.05.2016
    31 822/2015 Manasi Gupta 7474891 7179800 7.6.2014
    32 823/2015 Richa Rathi 5819907 5584875 1.7.2014
    33 824/2015 Ashish Sethi 7269840 6939380 9.6.2014
    34 825/2015 Sunil Kumar Singhvi 8589673 8225870 9.07.2014
    35 826/2015 Manoj Kumar Khera 5726261 5491800 6.6.2015
    36 827/2015 Ruchi Sharma 5726261 5491800 2.6.2014
    37 828/2015 Amit Khanna 7401973 7097800 8.6.2014
    38 829/2015 Ramesh Chandra Sharma 5927428 5680500 7.6.2014
    39 830/2015 Navdeep Sachdeva 8585777 8244300 7.12.2014

    40 831/2015 Bibhuti Ranjan Pradhan7371918 7060080 23.05.2015

    41 832/2015 Anand Tewari 7245804 6948150 4.9.2014
    42 833/2015 Pratip Francis 7405670 7097800 7.12.2014
    43 834/2015 Ankit Ahuja 5629132 5398725 9.4.2015
    44 835/2015 Vivek Gupta 5674566 5445263 1.8.2014

    20

    45 836/2015 Pradeep Agrawal 7136425 6858360 8.8.2014
    46 837/2015 Sangeeta Sunil Lahoti 8506788 8155060 3.9.2014
    47 838/2015 Supreet Bhalla 5746176 5509013 5.6.2014
    48 839/2015 Rajat Mehta 7256913 6970290 1.6.2014
    49 840/2015 Sajjan Kumar Gupta 5830460 5587425 9.3.2015
    50 841/2015 Rajesh Kumar 8593313 8244300 2.3.2015
    51 842/2015 Vijay Pal Singh Rathore 7736620 7245800 5.6.2014
    52 843/2015 Sumit Anand 8631584 8274370 9.10.2014
    53 844/2015 Rahul Kumar Tiwari 5891622 5648625 1.9.2014
    54 845/2015 Sonam Tshering 6065192 5796390 6.9.2014
    55 846/2015 Rajat Gupta 5674362 5439206 7.12.2014
    56 847/2015 Vishal Singh 5820441 5584875 1.6.2014
    57 848/2015 Aurbind Pal Singh 5892866 5648625 0.2.2015
    58 849/2015 Raghunath Lal Mehndiratta 6051827 5784510 1.4.2015
    59 850/2015 Ashish Raizada 7196862 6918220 5.6.2014
    60 1245/2015 Nihar Ranjan Sahoo 7424014 7138800 6.09.2014

    21

    4. The main question which arises for consideration in these complaints is as to whether this Commission possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain these complaints. As provided in section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed exceeds Rs.1 crore. Though most of the complainants have claimed refund @ Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft. of the area of the flat, no credible evidence has been led by them to prove that the market value of a flat similar to the flat allotted to them and in the same or a comparable locality was Rs.10,000/- or more on the date these complaints were instituted. No price list of any developer in respect of residential flats in the same or a comparable locality with identical or comparable specifications has been produced by them, in the absence of a credible evidence, it would be difficult to accept the bald statements of the complainants as regards the market value of a similar flat in the same or a comparable locality, on the dates these complaints were instituted. Therefore, invocation of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission on the basis of the aforesaid alleged market value of the similar flats is highly misplaced and cannot be entertained.

    Though ordinarily the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of the averments made in the complaint, this Commission will not be justified in entertaining the complaints based upon the allegations which are ex-facie untenable and where the claim is found to be highly inflated, fanciful and exaggerated, made only with a with view to bring the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular consumer forum. The scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, which requires a consumer complaint with pecuniary value of upto Rs.20 lakhs to be instituted before a District Forum and the complaints with a pecuniary value of more than Rs.20 lakhs and upto Rs.1 crore before the State Commission, cannot be allowed to be bypassed, by entertaining highly exaggerated and wholly unfounded claims.

    5. This Commission has in the past granted compensation in the form of interest paid Rs.18% per annum in the cases where refund has been allowed and compensation in the form of interest @ 12% per annum in the cases where possession of the house/plot has been directed. Therefore, a claim for refund by adding the agreed sale consideration to compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of filing of the complaint cannot be said to be highly exaggerated or fanciful and made only with a view to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission, even if this Commission eventually grants a lesser compensation to the complainant. Similarly, where the complainant seeking only the possession of the house but there is no prayer for refund of the payment made by him to the builder, the value arrived it by adding the agreed sale consideration to the compensation in the form of interest @ 12% p.a. from the committed date of possession till the date of filing of the complaint would be maintainable before this Commission if the said claim comes to more than Rs.1 crore.

    6. In a complaint where the complainant makes alternative prayers, one for possession of the house allotted / plot to him and the other for refund of the amount paid by him to the developer along with compensation, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where either the relief of possession or the relief of refund, alongwith the compensation as calculated in terms of para-5 hereinabove falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Since in such a case, the State Commission will not have the

    22

    requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to grant one of the alternative reliefs claimed in the complaint, the complainant cannot be asked to approach the said Commission.

    7. The learned counsel for the parties state on instructions that if the purchase price, service tax and VAT are taken as the value of the service and compensation in the form of 18% interest on the amount paid by the allottee from the date of each payment till the date on which the complaints were filed is added to the said value, the aggregate would come to more than Rs.1.00 crore each in the following 37 consumer complaints:

    Sl. No. Consumer Complaint No. Name of the complainant  
    1. 198/2015 Dushyant Kumar Gupta
    2. 793/2015 Rajesh Kumar Gupta
    3. 794/2015 Shashikant Rattanpal
    4. 795/2015 Sunil Puri
    5. 796/2015 Vipin Aggarwal
    6. 797/2015 Aseem Sachdeva
    7. 798/2015 Satish Kumar Verma
    8. 800/2015 Ankur Narang
    9. 801/2015 Ravindra Kumar Mehrotra
    10. 802/2015 Ankit Agarwal
    11. 806/2015 Adhish Kapoor
    12. 807/2015 Achal Sangal

    23

    13. 808/2015 Charan Singh
    14. 809/2015 Rukmani Gupta
    15. 811/2015 Sachin Malhotra
    16. 812/2015 Tribhawan Nath Bhan
    17. 8014/2015 Suresh Chander Sharma
    18. 817/2015 Ranjeet Passi
    19. 818/2015 Bharat Madan
    20. 819/2015 Pranab Kumar Bal
    21. 821/2015 Manju Gupta
    22. 822/2015 Manasi Gupta
    23. 824/2015 Ashish Sethi
    24. 825/2015 Sunil Kumar Singhvi
    25. 828/2015 Amit Khanna
    26. 830/2015 Navdeep Sachdeva
    27. 831/2015 Bibhuti Ranjan Pradhan
    28. 832/2015 Anand Tewari
    29. 833/2015 Pratip Francis

    24

    30. 836/2015 Pradeep Agrawal
    31. 837/2015 Sangeeta Sunil Lahoti
    32. 839/2015 Rajat Mehta
    33. 841/2015 Rajesh Kumar
    34. 842/2015 Vijay Pal Singh Rathore
    35. 843/2015 Sumit Anand
    36. 850/2015 Ashish Raizada
    37. 1245/2015 Nihar Ranjan Sahoo

    They also state that applying the same criteria, the aggregate does not come to more than

    Rs.1.00 crore in the remaining 23 complaints mentioned herein below:

    Sl. No. Consumer Complaints No. Name of the complainant
    1. 799/2015 Sanjay Ahuja
    2. 803/2015 Tarun Kumar Bindal
    3. 804/2015 Deepesh Sachdev
    4. 805/2015 Shailendra Singh Shekhawat
    5. 810/2015 Hemant Kumar
    6. 813/2015 Sumit Kumar Somani

    25

    7. 815/2015 Ashutosh Kumar Jain
    8. 816/2015 Parveen Kumar Agarwal
    9. 820/2015 Naresh Kumar Sharma
    10. 823/2015 Richa Rathi
    11. 826/2015 Manoj Kumar Khera
    12. 827/2015 Ruchi Sharma
    13. 829/2015 Ramesh Chandra Sharma
    14. 834/2015 Ankit Ahuja
    15. 835/2015 Vivek Gupta
    16. 838/2015 Supreet Bhalla
    17. 840/2015 Sajjan Kumar Gupta
    18. 844/2015 Rahul Kumar Tiwari
    19. 845/2015 Sonam Tshering
    20. 846/2015 Rajat Gupta
    21. 847/2015 Vishal Singh
    22. 848/2015 Aurbind Pal Singh
    23. 849/2015 Raghunath Lal Mehndiratta

    26

    8. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the opposite party was that the service tax and VAT cannot be added to the sale price in order to determine the value of the service in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. I however, find no merit in this contention since, as per the agreement between the parties, the flat buyers were required to pay the aforesaid taxes to the opposite party, and not pay them directly to the concerned Government. It would be immaterial that the opposite party, in turn would have to deposit the said taxes with the concerned Government, the material fact being that without payment of the agreed purchase price and these taxes, the opposite party would be under no obligation to deliver possession of the flat to the buyers. Therefore, the aforesaid taxes, in my opinion, cannot be excluded while determining the value of the service, in terms of Section 21 of the consumer Protection Act.

    9. No material has been produced by the opposite party to prove that the completion of construction and offer of possession has been delayed on account of reasons beyond its control. Thus, no justification for the said delay has been made out. The learned counsel for the complainants in 37 complaints in which the pecuniary jurisdiction vests with this Commission states on instruction from the said complainants that in order to avoid further litigation in the matter, such complainants who want to take refund instead of waiting for the possession of the flats are restricting their claim to refund of the entire principal amount paid by them, including service tax and VAT along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount, along with interest, in terms of this order, is refunded to them. He further states on instructions that such flat buyers out of the above referred 37 complainant, who want to wait for possession of the flats, with a view to avoid further litigation, are restricting their claim for compensation to simple interest @ 8% per annum on the entire amount including VAT and Service Tax paid by them from the committed date of possession till the date on which the possession of the flat is offered to them after obtaining all the requisite clearances, including the Occupancy Certificate.

    10. In view of the aforesaid statement the Consumer Complaints Nos. CC/198/2015, CC/793/2015, CC/795/2015, CC/796/2015, CC/797/2015, CC/798/2015, CC/800/2015, CC/801/2015, CC/802/2015, CC/806/2015, CC/807/2015, CC/809/2015, CC/812/2015, CC/814/2015, CC/818/2015, CC/821/2015, CC/822/2015, CC/824/2015, CC/828/2015, CC/831/2015, CC/832/2015, CC/836/2015, CC/837/2015, CC/839/2015, CC/841/2015, CC/847/2017, CC/850/2015, are disposed of with the following directions:

    (i) The opposite party shall refund the entire amount received from the complainants, including the payment, if any, made by their predecessor in interest, including service tax and VAT, along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount, in terms of this order along with compensation in the form of interest is actually refunded to them, by way of a Demand Draft / Pay Order;

    (ii) The opposite party shall pay Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation in each complaint;

    27

    (iii) The payment, in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.

    11. The Consumer Complaints Nos. CC/794/2015, CC/808/2015, CC/811/2015, CC/817/2015, CC/819/2015, CC/825/2015, CC/830/2015, CC/833/2015, CC/843/2015, CC/1245/2015 are disposed of with the following directions:

    1. The opposite party shall complete the construction of the flats allotted to the complainants in all respects, obtain all the requisite clearances, including the Occupancy Certificate and offer possession to the complainants on or before 30.04.2018;

    2. The opposite party shall pay compensation to the aforesaid complainants in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum on the entire amount paid by them including VAT and Service Tax from the committed date of possession i.e. the date by which the possession of the flat was agreed / expected to be offered as per the Agreement to Sell, till the date on which the possession in terms of this order is offered to them after obtaining all the requisite clearances, including the Occupancy Certificate.The grace period as per the Agreement To Sell will be included, while determining the committed date of possession;

    3. The opposite party shall pay Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation in each complaint;

    4. The compensation in terms of this order shall be paid on or before 30.4.2018, unless the possession in terms of this order is offered at an earlier date in which case it shall be paid while offering the possession of the flat.If any balance amount, as per the Agreement to Sell, remains payable to the opposite party, that amount can be adjusted while computing the compensation.

    12. Now I am coming to the complaints which do not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The question which arises for consideration as to what course of action should be adopted in respect of these complaints which have been pending with this Commission for the last about 1½ years. One course can be to dismiss these complaints with liberty to such complainants to institute fresh complaints before the concerned State Commission. The aforesaid course of action, in my view, would not be fair and reasonable, considering that the complaints are pending for about 1½ years and at one point of time, this Commission held the view that the market value of the flat as on the date of filing of the complaint could be treated as the value of the service in such matters. In my view, the appropriate course of action in such matters would be to follow the procedure prescribed in Order 7 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though, the aforesaid provision has not been expressly extended to this Commission by Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, the principle underlying the said provision can in appropriate cases, be adopted by this Commission, in order to protect the interest of the consumers, while simultaneously ensuring that no prejudice is caused to the service provider by adopting such a course of action. The opposite party in these cases has filed its written version on the merits of the complaints. It has also led evidence on merits. No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the complaints are returned for being presented before the concerned State Commission, with a direction to the State Commission to decide them afresh, taking into consideration, the pleadings, affidavits and the evidence including documentary evidence filed by the parties before this Commission provided an opportunity is given to the parties to lead additional

    28

    evidence and if filed, such additional evidence is also considered along with the evidence, which was filed before this Commission. The aforesaid course of action besides ensuring a prompt and expeditious disposal of the complaints by a competent Consumer Forum will also ensure that no prejudice is caused to either party in any manner.

    13. The learned counsel for the aforesaid complainants states that they will present the complaints before Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission within two weeks of receiving the same from the Registry, and requests that a date may be fixed for the appearance of the parties before the said Commission. The following directions are therefore issued in CC/799/2015, CC/803/2015, CC/804/2015, CC/805/2015, CC/810/2015, CC/813/2015, CC/815/2015, CC/816/2015, CC/820/2015, CC/823/2015, CC/826/2015, CC/827/2015, CC/829/2015, CC/834/2015, CC/835/2015, CC/838/2015, CC/840/2015, CC/844/2015, CC/845/2015, CC/846/2015, CC/847/2015, CC/848/2015, CC/849/2015

    (i) The complaint be returned to the complainant (s), along with an endorsement containing the date of presentation and return of the complaint, the name of the complainant(s) presenting the complaint and a brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint;

    (ii) The complaint shall be returned within one week from today, along with the requisite endorsement and can be presented before Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission within two weeks thereafter;

    (iii) The parties shall appear before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at 10.30 a.m. on 03.03.2017;

    1. The State Commission need not issue a fresh notice requiring the parties to appear before it on the aforesaid date.

    2. The State Commission shall decide the complaints in terms of Para 12 of this Order.

    3. There shall be no order as to costs in the aforesaid matters. Considering that the complaints have been pending with this Commission for the last about 1½ years, the State Commission is requested to hear and decide the complaints expeditiously, if presented before it, in terms of this order.

    ......................J

    V.K. JAIN

    PRESIDING MEMBER

    29

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Dushyant Kumar Gupta v. Today Homes & Infrastructure Private Limited
    (Jan 31, 2017)