Roshan Kumar v. Emering India Housing Corporation Ltd.,

RBT No. Consumer Complaint No. 561/2016 110/2016 Date of Institution : 21.03.2016 Date of Decision : 07.02.2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Roshan Kumar s/o Sh.Lal Chand. Pooja Garg w/o Sh.Roshan Kumar Resident of Aggarwal Book Depot, Nabha Gate, Sangrur. ... Complainants. Versus

1. M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation Ltd., SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160009.

2. M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd., B-57, Lower Ground, South Extension-2, New Delhi-49. . Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER : NoneArgued by PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT The case has been received by the Hon'ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh vide its order dated 28.07.2016. In brief, the case of the complainants as alleged by them the OPs floated a Mega Housing Project at Sector 115, Greater Mohali, Kharar Landran Road in the year 2011 under the name and style of Emerging India comprising of Emerging Heights-III. The OPs mentioned in the booklet that the project was approved by the Punjab govt. but the same was not approved. It has further been averred that vide booking confirmation letter dated 20.07.2011, the complainants were informed by the OPs that in pursuance of the application No.64048, they were allotted flat No.B-402 in Emerging Heights-III, Sector 115, Greater Mohali in the draw of lots held on 10.07.2011. Thereafter, the OPs issued allotment letter dated 18.08.2012 (Annexure C-3) wherein the total cost of the flat in question was mentioned to be Rs.37,81,100/-. It has been averred that they further deposited Rs.18,86,600/- through different installments as mentioned in para 7 of the complaint with the OPs. As per the terms and conditions, the OP could raise demand third installment on the commencement of the construction only but they have not started the construction of the tower where the flat in question was situated. It has further been averred that the OPs did not have the requisite permission to start the construction of the flat. The complainants requested the OPs a number of times to provide the agreement to sell/documents which were to be signed between them but to no effect. It has further been averred that they requested the OPs number of times to deliver the possession of the flat or to refund the deposited amount to them but all in vain. Ultimately, they got served a legal notice dated 27.10.2015 upon the OPs but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants have filed the instant complaint. In their written statement, OPs have admitted that the complainants were allotted the flat in question vide provisional allotment letter dated 18.08.2012. It has further been pleaded that the possession of the unit was proposed to be delivered to the allottees in 36 months time from the date of booking/allotment once all approvals and sanctioned have been obtained from sanctioning authority, whichever is later, subject to force majeure circumstances and reasons beyond the control of the OPs. It has further been pleaded that the complainants were entitled to get the possession by 18.02.2015 and only about one year is over and now the project is near to completion and the complainants would be handed over the possession within next six months. It has further been pleaded that the possession could not be delivered in time due to the reasons beyond the control of the Company. It has further been pleaded that the OPs possess all the requisite permission and construction is going on in full swing and the possession of the flat is likely to be handed over within next six months. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. On 31.01.2017 none appeared on behalf of the parties, when the case was fixed for arguments. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose the complaint under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the parties. After going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the principle of law laid down in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in the case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous In para No. 15 of the Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC No.97 of 2016, decided on 7.10.2016. judgment while dealing with reference dated 11.8.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

Issue No.(i) It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. Issue No.(ii) Xxxxxx Issue No.(iii) xxxxxx Issue No. (iv) In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.

From the afore extracted para, it is evident that It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Honble National Commission has further held that while determining pecuniary jurisdiction by the consumer Fora they are required to take into consideration the aggregate value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed by consumer plus compensation. In the instant case, as per the own version of the complainants made in the complaint, the total cost of the flat in question is Rs.37,81,100/- and out of which, the complainants alleged to have deposited Rs.18,86,600/-, which is clearly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as prescribed under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly provides that this Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed does not exceeds Rs.20,00,000. Hence, keeping in view the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the principle of law laid down by the Honble National Commission in this complaint Ambrish Kumar Shuklas case (supra) is not maintainable being out of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and the same deserves to be dismissed alone on this ground. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/Commission, having the pecuniary jurisdiction, under the provisions of law for redressal of his grievance. He may take advantage of the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC , to seek exclusion of time spent before this Forum. 583 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 07.02.2017 Sd/- (RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER Sd/- (RAVINDER SINGH) MEMBER