National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Renu Singh vs Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 29 June, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 10/11/2017 in Complaint No. 646/2017 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. RENU SINGH N-81, PANCHSHEEL PARK. NEW DELHI-110017 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. FLOOR, BLOCK-B, FIRST INDIA PLACE, SUSHANT LOK1, M.G. ROAD. GURUGRAM. HARYANA-122002 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Ms. Stuti Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Dheeraj Kapoor, Advocate
Dated : 29 Jun 2018 ORDER
This first appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short 'The Act') against the impugned order dated 15.11.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 646/2017, wherein the State Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Renu Singh booked a residential unit in the project of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party (for short 'the builder') on 17.12.2012. The total price of the unit was Rs. 1,28,84,474/-. The complainant had paid Rs. 35,40,598/- to the builder, the builder buyer agreement which received by the complainant on 24.04.2013, the complainant did not agree with the terms and conditions in the said agreement. Therefore, she requested the builder to refund the amount deposited with him, but to no avail. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the complaint before the State Commission seeking refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with compensation and litigation expenses.
3. The State Commission dismissed the complaint at admission stage on the ground that the complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission because value of the unit in question was ₹ 1,28,84,474/-, hence, not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the complainant preferred first appeal before this Commission.
4. I have heard the arguments from learned counsel from both the parties and perused the relevant documents on the file. The counsel for complainant vehemently argued that the respondent imposed unilateral terms and conditions on the appellant through the builder buyer agreement, which the appellant refused to execute, therefore, complainant sought refund of her booking amount, which the OP refused. The OP even failed to construct and offer the possession of the flat. Therefore, it was the deficiency on the part of OP. The instant complaint is related to the refund of amount. The counsel relied upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in M/s Advance Ispat (India) Ltd. vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, consumer complaint No. 2206 of 2016, decided on 13.7.2017, Ruhi Seth vs. IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. consumer complaint No. 1464 of 2017, decided on 13.11.2017 and Bishwa Mohan Kumar Singh vs. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. II(2018) CPJ 332 (NC). The counsel for the complainant further submitted that the judgment of larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. consumer complaint No. 97 of 2016, decided on 7.10.2016, is silent on the issue of value of goods and services in cases where refund has been requested.
5. The counsel for the OP/respondent argued that in view of judgment of larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) in which this Commission held that, if the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I follow the decision of larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra), because in the instant case, the value of the unit itself is Rs.1,28,84,474/-, therefore, the pecuniary jurisdiction in the instant complaint is not before the State Commission, but it is before the National Commission. I do not find any perversity in the well reasoned order passed by the State Commission, which stands affirmed.
7. The first appeal is hereby dismissed, with liberty to the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate forum, as per law.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER