State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sudha Yadav vs M2K Infrastructure on 7 April, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA. Complaint No.60 of 2016 Date of Institution: 09.03.2016 Date of Decision: 07.04.2016 1. Sudha Yadav D/o Sh.R.C.Yadav, 2. Ritesh Parkash Yadav son of Sudha Yadav, Both resident of House NO.2064, Sector 4 Urban Estate, Gurgaon. .....Complainants Versus 1. M/s Ashray Real Estate GF 27 Sohna road Gurgaon through its authorized signatory. 2. M/s M2K infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. B-13/29 Harsha Bhawan Connaught Circus, New Delhi through its Authorized signatory. .....Opposite Parties CORAM: Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member. Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the parties: Mr.Ravi Kant proxy counsel for Mr. R.S.Badhran, Advocate counsel for the complainant. O R D E R
R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
In the present dispute, complainant has requested to give relief as mentioned below:
To immediately complete the construction and provide all civic amenities and deliver the possession of apartment No.E-702 in M2K Country Heights Dharuhera.
To pay interest on all the deposits from the date of deposits at the rate on which they have charged for delayed payments which they were not entitled till delivery of possession and those amounts to be refunded or adjusted towards final payment;
To pay holding charges @ 5 per Sq. Ft. per month after expiry of 36 months stipulated period as per buyer's agreement Article 5;
To pay litigation to the tune of Rs.22,000/-;
To pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment expenses already incurred in correspondence conveyance etc. To exempt the petitioner form filing the certified copies of the documents.
To summon the record of the opposite parties as all the original documents are in the office of opposite parties To grant any other relief as if deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard. File perused.
3. The value of this claim is much less than Rs.20 lakhs, but, the complainant is alleging that value of the apartment is Rs.21,30,375/- and that is why this Commission is heaving pecuniary jurisdiction. As per opinion of this Commission in Vinita Goyal Vs. M/s Unitech Limited III (2014) CPJ 139 (Har.) value of the flat cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. So this Commission is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint and it be returned to the complainant to file it before appropriate Forum.
April 07th, 2016 Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench S.K.