National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pradeep Banwar vs M/S. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. on 9 May, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 801 OF 2017 1. PRADEEP BANWAR H-28, DWARKADHEESH RESIDENCY, PIMPLE SUADAGAR. PUNE-411027. MAHARASHTRA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
SPAZEDGE, SECTOR-47, SOHNA ROAD. GURUGRAM-12202 HARYANA. ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Pushkar Anand, Advocate For the Opp.Party :
Dated : 09 May 2017 ORDER
1.This complaint has been filed by the complainant, Mr. Pradeep Banwar, against the opposite party.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.11.2012 the complainant booked a flat admeasuring 2905 sqft. Spaze Kalista, situated at Sec-84, Gurgaon. On 1.10.2012, 3.10.2012, 21.12.2012,24.12.2012, 07.01.2013, 11.02.2013, 20.02.2013, the complainant further paid amounts aggregating to Rs.35,92,832/- to the opposite party against the price of the flat. The opposite party vide allotment letter dated 29.04.2013 allotted flat/unit no.151 in PRIVY AT4 SPAZE KALISTAA having size, 2905 Sq.ft. at a total cost of Rs.2,01,87,625.00. On the instance of the builder, the booking was done for a bigger flat. However, when the complainant received the allotment letter, there was no provision for conversion of the flat in the said allotment letter. The complainant wanted a smaller unit i.e. 2 BHK flat. In the month of May, 2014, the opposite party sent a demand letter of demand note of Rs.1,36,96,415.00 to the complainant. On 15.04.2015, the opposite party cancelled the allotment by letter dated 15.04.2015. On 27.08.2015, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana Panchkula. On 19.12.2016, the complainant withdrew the complaint In his view of the law laid down by a Three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Parikshit Parashar Vs. M/s. Universal Buildwell Private Limited and Others decided on October 07th 2016. On 10.03.2017, the present complaint has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the maintainability and jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the complainant stated that the total consideration of the flat was Rs.2,01,87,625/-. The complainant had booked the house by paying Rs.15,00,000/- in October, 2012. Then during the year 2012-2013 the complainant paid further amounts and total payment is Rs.35,92,832/-. Since then there was no letter of communication from the side of the opposite party. However, the complainant finally received a demand of Rs.1,36,96,415/- from the opposite party in May, 2014. The complainant then requested the opposite party to facilitate some loan and to convert the booking to a smaller unit costing less amount. The complainant was in dialogue with the ICICI for loan, but, in the meantime the opposite party vide letter dated 15.04.2015 cancelled the allotment letter. As there is no progress in the construction, the complainant now has decided to get the refund of his deposited amount from the opposite party.
4. The learned counsel further argued that as the total consideration was for an amount greater than Rupees One Crore, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint. In support of his argument, learned counsel cited the following judgments:-
"(i) Parikshit Parashar Vs. M/s. Universal Buildwell Private Limited & 2 Ors., FA No.644 of 2015, decided on 07.10.2016, (NC)
(ii) Santosh Arya Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited, FA No.1194 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016, (NC)"
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and have examined the record. The prayer of the complaint states as follows:-
"a) Refund the deposited amount amounting to INR 35,92,832/- paid by complainant to O.P. along with 18% interest;
b) Pay a sum of INR 500000 towards physical strain, mental agony and financial losses suffered by the complainant (compensation); and
c) Pay a sum of INR 50,000 towards cost of this forced litigation.
d) Pass such any order/orders, as this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the end of justice."
6. From the above, it is evident that the main prayer is in respect of refund of the deposited amount of Rs.35,92,832/-. The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been recently decided by the larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC). A reading of this judgment shows that this Commission has held that in cases where even the part 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. However, this judgment is silent on the issue of value of goods and services in cases where refund has been requested. Obviously, there is difference in the cases where parties want to go ahead and conclude the sale of goods or availment of services and where one party is only seeking the refund and thereby clearly deciding for non-execution of the agreement. In the cases of refund the value of complaint has to be the value of the amount deposited plus compensation claimed. In the present case, amount deposited is Rs.35,92,832/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been demanded. Thus, the total figure does not cross the limit of Rupees One Crore, which is necessary for this Commission to exercise its jurisdiction. Even the addition of demanded interest shall not make the total value more than Rs. One Crore. In these circumstances, this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint case.
7. Based on the above discussion, Consumer Complaint No.801 of 2017, Pradeep Banwar Vs. M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. is not maintainable in this Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, complaint stands dismissed as not being maintainable before this Commission on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, in the interest of justice, the complainant is given liberty to file the same complaint before the concerned State Commission which will decide the complaint on merit.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER